Strategies to Mitigate Negative Results of Supply Chain Disruptio

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

Between 2000 and 2015, supply chains became one of the most critical subjects of

management research, and managers started to establish strategies to adjust to supply

chain dynamics and to mitigate disruptions (Ivanov, Mason, & Hartl, 2016). Supply

chains can be considered the foundation of the global economy, and organizational

managers became more interested in supply chain disruptions and how to mitigate risk

(Varzandeh, Farahbod, & Jake, 2016). Varzandeh et al. (2016) stated that organizational

managers who can respond to supply disruptions efficiently and rapidly obtain an

additional advantage over their competitors. The findings from this study may provide

insights into effective strategies managers can use to mitigate the effects of supply chain

disruptions.

Background of the Problem

Due to the increased occurrence and the critical effects of past supply chain

disruptions, organizational managers and researchers have started to focus more on

supply chain disruption and the need to address its risk (Heckmann, Comes, & Nickel,

2015). Additionally, as a result of the increasing difficulty and interrelation of current

supply chains, managers find it hard and sometimes impossible to address the nature and

description of any uncertain developments (Heckmann et al., 2015). For organizations to

be competitive, managers must ensure they are obtaining a cost-efficient, responsive, and

flexible supply chain to deliver products with high quality at the right time and place

(Milovanović, Milovanović, & Radisavljević, 2017). A supply chain (SC) is an integrated

network concerned with the flow of products or services from suppliers to customers

(Esmaeilikia et al., 2016). SC disruption occurs when an unexpected incident happened

that caused an interrupted flow of products or services in the SC and result in undesirable

outcomes for normal SC operations (Tse, Matthews, Tan, Sato, & Pongpanich, 2016). SC

disruptions negatively influence organization performance levels, cost, and

responsiveness to industry changes (Srivastava, Chaudhuri, & Srivastava, 2015), and

managers need to develop strategies to mitigate SC disruption and reduce its outcome

(Kumar, Himes, & Kritzer, 2014). Organizational managers are required to ensure

efficient responsiveness to costly disruptions (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014) and manage its risk

(Parihar & Rahul, 2014) to enhance organizational performance and competitiveness.

Globalization of business increased the complexity of organizational SC

management, and customers became more demanding for innovative products at a

reasonable price (Milovanović et al., 2017). Therefore, managers have found it

increasingly challenging to establish responsive and cost-effective SCs (Milovanović et

al., 2017). Organizational managers need to develop effective strategies to control the

impact of SC disruption, or the organization can suffer from revenue losses and,

sometimes, can close operations (Kumar et al., 2014).

Problem Statement

The growing complexity of managing an SC has resulted in SC disruptions that

negatively impact organizational performance and increase costs (Kamalahmadi &

Parast, 2017). According to Alcantara’s (2015) supply chain resilience survey of over 519

organizations from 71 countries, 75% of these organizations encountered at least one SC

disruption, 15% faced disruptions that cost more than one million euros, and 9%

addressed a single disruption that cost above one million euros. The general business

problem is that some managers lack strategies to mitigate the negative results of SC

disruptions. The specific business problem is that some managers in the mining industry

lack strategies to mitigate the negative results of SC disruptions.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

some SC managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the negative results of SC

disruption. The target population was four SC managers in the mining industry in

Amman, Jordan, who successfully developed and implemented effective strategies to

mitigate the negative results of SC disruption. There may be contributions to positive

social change by mitigating negative results of SC disruptions, which may allow

organizations to maintain success, create more jobs, save resources, and support the

welfare of their employees, families, and communities.

Nature of the Study

For the study, I used the qualitative research methodology. The qualitative design

provides an in-depth analysis of the descriptive questions (Gerring, 2017). Researchers

use the qualitative methodology to explain and explore the meaning of social and human

behavior and decisions (Bailey, 2014). Therefore, qualitative methodology was the most

appropriate design for this study. The quantitative approach was not appropriate for the

study because I am not seeking to test hypotheses and examine variables. Researchers use

the quantitative approach to identify, describe, and investigate the relationship between

variables (Yin, 2014) and provide a descriptive mathematical analysis (Park & Park,

2016), which this study did not have. In mixed methodology, there is a need to combine

quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the same research when either methodology

is insufficient on its own (Turner, Cardinal, & Burton, 2017). Therefore, the mixed

methodology was not appropriate for this study because this study did not need a

combination of qualitative and quantitative methods for collecting and analyzing the data.

For the study design, I reviewed the following qualitative research designs: (a)

case study, (b) phenomenology, (c) ethnography, and (d) narrative design. A multiple

case study was the most appropriate design for the study, given the intricate complexity

of the subject under investigation and because the study would involve few participants.

Researchers use a case study methodology to gain an in-depth understanding of a

problem (Yin, 2014) involving complex subjects and few participants (Park & Park,

2016). The phenomenological design was not suitable because the study would not

include individual viewpoints and understandings from experiencing one or more

incidents. Researchers use the phenomenological design when the research involves

studying members for their actual human experience in a major life event (Bentahar &

Cameron, 2015). The ethnographic design was not suitable for the study. Researchers use

the ethnographic design when studying the cultures of specific groups, how people within

groups interact with each other, and how culture affects group member (Kruth, 2015).

The narrative study design was not suitable for the study. Researchers use the narrative

design to concentrate on the life experiences of individuals over time and analyze their

experiences (Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2016).

Research Question

The main research question of this study was: What strategies do managers in the

mining industry use to mitigate the negative results of supply chain disruptions?

Interview Questions

The following are the interview questions for this study:

1. How do managers in the mining industry define SC disruption?

2. What type of SC disruptions do companies in the mining industry encounter?

3. What processes do you use to identify SC disruption in the mining industry?

4. How have you responded to SC disruption in your organization?

5. What processes have been put in place to reduce SC disruptions in the mining

industry?

6. What types of collaboration within the SC do you use to reduce the negative

results of SC disruption in the mining industry?

7. How do you align strategies for mitigating SC disruption in the mining industry

with SC partners?

8. How do you evaluate the success of the strategies you employ to mitigate the

negative effects of SC disruptions in the mining industry?

9. What difficulties have you encountered or you are still encountering in your

attempt to reduce or eliminate SC disruption?

10. What additional comments and suggestions can you make regarding SC

disruptions in the mining industry?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework and the underlying theory for this qualitative multiple

case study was resource dependence theory (RDT). Pfeffer and Salancik introduced RDT

in 1978. According to the RDT, organization survival depends on managers’ abilities to

obtain critical resources from the external environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) for a

long term (Wolf, 2014). Furthermore, according to RDT, the foundation of organizational

performance is its ability and degree of dependence on different resources (Bryant &

Davis, 2012). According to Arik, Clark, and Raffo (2016), organizational success

depends on an organization’s abilities to adjust its structure to obtain the required

external resources and reduce its reliance on others for resources. Organizational

managers use different procedures to reduce uncertainty in the flow of resources (Klein &

Diniz Pereira, 2016), and according to RDT, establishing interorganizational relationships

is an appropriate procedure to attain organization resources, maintain dependence, and

reduce uncertainty (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). In addition, managers seek to increase

their organizational dependence by establishing a collaborative relationship with

organizational SC partners (Klein & Diniz Pereira, 2016). Resource dependency

directions are important to organizations for understanding the difficulty of external

dependencies (Malatesta & Smith, 2014). Researchers have use RDT to study and

understand the development of interorganizational relationships to decrease uncertainty

in the flow of resources (Klein & Diniz Pereira, 2016). According to RDT, managers

attempt to manage their resource dependencies by establishing several forms of

interorganizational arrangements to direct organizations toward their benefits (Klein &

Diniz Pereira, 2016). RDT is appropriate for my study because managers leverage

customer and supplier relationships to reduce operational uncertainty.

Operational Definitions

Global supply chain: Provides organizations with the ability to encounter new,

different customers and markets; attain supplies; increase the discovery of innovative

products; and obtain the best products at the best prices (Kim, Park, Jung, & Park, (2018).

Risk management: A proactive method that organizational managers use to

address, analyze, and control risks and uncertainties within an organization (Cagnin,

Oliveira, Simon, Helleno, & Vendramini, 2016).

Supply chain collaboration: An interorganizational partnership process in which

two or more independent parties work together to organize, align, and fulfill SC

operations to operate a value-added method for the fulfillment of mutual goals and

benefits (Liao, Ding, & Hu, 2017).

Supply chain disruption: An unexpected occurrence causing an interrupted flow

of goods or services in the SC and resulting in undesirable outcomes for normal SC

processes (Tse et al., 2016).

Supply chain management: A combination of processes for efficiently managing

the operations of the SC to deliver value to customers and stakeholders and increasing SC

performance (Kumar & Kushwaha, 2018).

Supply chain relationships: Interorganizational interconnected relationships and

collaborations between SC members, which lead to SC responsiveness to market

challenges (Skippari, Laukkanen, & Salo, 2017).

Supply chain risk management: A collaboration between organization partners

and stakeholders and key decision makers to identify and manage the risks and

uncertainties of the SC network (Qazi, Quigley, Dickson, & Gaudenzi, 2018).

Supply chain responsiveness: The capability of SC managers to satisfy customer

orders and adapt to customer order changes within a promised time (Hum, Parlar, &

Zhou, 2018).

Supply chain strategy: The understanding, development, and operation of design

to sustain organizational fit with environmental changes to achieve higher performance

(Prajogo, Mena, & Nair, 2017).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

In this section, I describe the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of this

study. Assumptions are factors of a study considered out of the researcher’s control and

all research contains assumptions (Givens, 2008). Limitations are potential weaknesses of

research beyond the researcher’s control (Givens, 2008). Researchers allocate the

delimitations of the study to recognize the boundaries of the study and limit its range

(Givens, 2008).

Assumptions are statements or truths that people realize and approve without

carrying any evidence (Schoenung & Dikova, 2016). The first assumption in this study

was that organizational managers and SC managers were the most knowledgeable and

appropriate candidates in a company to identify and explain strategies for mitigating

disruptions in the SC. Another assumption was that the study participants would assign

sufficient time to participate in the interview process. Additionally, I assumed that the

interviewees provided honest, accurate, and complete responses to interview questions

based on their knowledge and experience regarding strategies to mitigate SC disruption. I

depended on organization documents for triangulation and assumed that organizational

managers would deliver appropriate documentation.

Limitations are restraints and weaknesses that the researcher cannot control (Yin,

2017). According to Yin (2017), study limitations can influence result transferability. The

study was limited to the participants’ availability for interviews, their openness and

honesty in responses, and their knowledge about the research subject. Although a

researcher can manage the study population and sample size, the researcher has no

control over the participants’ responses and cannot ensure the truthfulness of the them.

However, to minimize this limitation, I assured the confidentiality of the participants’

personal information, which included their names and the company name. I depended on

documentation for triangulation. Therefore, my access to appropriate organizational

documents could have been a limitation.

Delimitations represent the boundaries of a study (Givens, 2008) that the

researcher uses to limit the scope of the research (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). I chose

four organizational and SC managers from two global companies in Jordan, which

delimitate the study. I controlled the scope of the study by interviewing only managers

with at least 5 years of experience and currently working in the organization and SC

sector. Furthermore, the data sources of the study involved interviews and organization

documents, which were the most appropriate method for obtaining in-depth descriptions

of the strategies used to mitigate SC disruption. I conducted this study to gain knowledge

of effective strategies to mitigate the negative results of SC disruption.

Significance of the Study

Contribution to Business Practice

The purpose of this study was to explore the strategies managers use to mitigate

the negative results of SC disruption. The results of this study may present insight into

effective strategies managers in the Jordanian mining industry use to mitigate the

negative results of SC disruption. SC disruption can lead to massive losses for

organizations and SC partners (Youyu et al., 2017). Effectively managing and controlling

SC disruption allows organizational managers to compete in the marketplace and sustain

competitiveness (Mellat-Parast & Spillan, 2014). In addition, efficient and successful

managing of SC disruptions can improve organizational performance (Parihar & Rahul,

2014). Ignoring disruption risks can lead to negative outcomes, such as financial loss,

increased transportation costs, inventory shortages, order delays, and reduction in market

shares (Peng, Snyder, Lim, & Liu, 2011). Additionally, a manager’s ability to manage an

SC influences organizational success or failure (Mellat-Parast & Spillan, 2014). The

outcomes of this study may assist SC managers in minimizing the negative results of SC

disruptions.

Contribution to Social Change

Society may benefit from the study results regarding the best strategies to mitigate

the negative results of SC disruption, which affect organizations, employees, and

communities. The social change covers social matters concerning the well-being of

individuals, communities, organizations, and society (O’Cass & Griffin, 2015).

Deploying effective SC management strategies can save organizational resources and

enhance customer value and satisfaction (Omar, Davis-Sramek, Fugate, & Mentzer,

2012). Gaining knowledge about the proper strategies to mitigate the negative results of

SC disruption may enhance organizational SC outcomes and may allow a company to

compete for more customers and increase employment in the community. Effective SC

management strategies may improve control over product costs and reduce cause for

price increases (Sekip-Altug & Van Ryzin, 2014). According to Ellinger et al. (2012),

the leading SC organizations reveal higher degrees of customer satisfaction and

produce higher levels of shareholder value. Successful organizations and managers

positively and effectively impact individual lives and social conditions by creating jobs,

contributing to environmental sustainability plans, and promoting economic growth

(Polonsky, Grau, & Mcdonald, 2016). Organizational managers may integrate social and

environmental concerns in organizational strategies, increase organization performance,

and enhance customer service (Tseng, Lim, & Wong, 2015). Improving work conditions

benefits worker communities.

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

SC managers use to mitigate the negative results of SC disruption. The following section

includes a review of literature and resources connected to the research subject. I used

EBSCOhost, ProQuest in the Walden library database to obtain all scholarly peer-

reviewed articles related to my research study. I used the following key terms to collect

the articles for the study literature review: supply chain management, supply chain

collaboration, supply chain disruption, supply chain risk, supply chain strategies, and

supply chain mitigation. Through the literature review, I provided a comprehensive

approach to understand the topic of mitigating disruptions in SCs and to explore the

strategies managers use to mitigate SC disruption on business performance. Researchers

use a literature review to provide a logical framework for the study and support the study

subject (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The research question of this study is intended to

address the strategies managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the negative results

of SC disruptions.

Resource Dependency Theory

The theory underlying this study is RDT, which focuses on the organizational

manager’s ability to obtain external resources (Wolf, 2014). Ulrich and Barney (1984)

explained that RDT illustrates a collection of power relations created through the

exchange of resources. First, organizations establish internal and external alliances,

which develop from social exchanges to influence and control the environment (Ulrich &

Barney, 1984). Second, organizational managers try to manage the environment’s rare

and valuable resources, which are critical for the organization’s existence (Ulrich &

Barney, 1984). Third, managers attempt to gain control over resources to reduce their

reliance on other organizations (Ulrich & Barney, 1984). This framework can be used by

SC managers to develop efficient reactions to SC disruptions. Additionally, RDT is a

helpful method for ensuring SC stability. Successful managers need to adjust their

organizations’ structures and activities to secure the necessary external resources (Arik,

Clark, & Raffo, 2016).

According to Pfeffer and Salancik (2003), the foundation of an organization’s

survival is its ability to secure resources in an uncontrolled environment; otherwise,

organizations depend on others to supply the resources they need. Understanding an

organization’s environment and the barriers to obtaining resources therein allows

researchers to develop the procedures that should be performed by organizational

managers (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). The goal of an organizational manager is to

decrease the organization’s reliance on other firms for the supply of limited resources

(Mwai, Kiplang’at, & Gichoya, 2014). The target of any organizational managers is to

decrease organization reliance on other firms by obtaining resources and by responding to

market demands (Ntim, Lindop, Osei, & Thomas, 2015). According to RDT, resources

are the source of an organization’s strength and independence, and organizations are most

competitive when they control their resources (Mwai et al., 2014; Arik et al., 2016).

Obtaining critical resources is a necessary principle of organizational strategy and tactical

management (Mwai et al., 2014). In addition to increasing an organization’s

independence, obtaining more resources also increases an organization’s control over

other organizations in the market (Huo, Zhang, & Zhao, 2015). Organizations that control

essential resources in the SC decrease their level of dependency on other organizations

(Rajesh & Ravi, 2015).

In any environment, an organization faces a level of uncertainty that can be

minimized by managers’ ability to develop relationships within the SC (Mwai et al.,

2014). Through the development of formal and informal partnerships and obtainment of

some resources internally, organizational managers may reduce uncertainty and better

control an SC (Ulrich & Barney, 1984). Soosay and Hyland (2015) explain that SC

managers work in partnership with external organizations to achieve higher performance

and decrease uncertainty in organization resources to meet expectations. The focus of

RDT is on managing and controlling external resource supplies to reduce dependency

(Bode, Wagner, Petersen, & Ellram, 2011; Pfeffer, 1981). One problem that managers

often face in this process is a shortage of resources (Bell, Mollenkopf, & Stolze, 2013).

According to Prajogo and Sohal (2013), managing scarce resources affects establishing

SC strategies. According to Riley, Klein, Miller, and Sridharan (2016), handling

information flows can strengthen firms’ risk management capabilities. Managers can

create a collaborative communication system to manage and mitigate risk in the SC

(Riley et al., 2016). Employing practical information and material flow systems may

minimize the uncertainty of an SC meeting management expectations (Riley et al., 2016).

Collaboration among SC partners allows managers to maintain flexibility in the SC and

to implement change when needed (Riley et al., 2016). Talluri, Kull, Yildiz, and Yoon

(2013) suggested that to manage SC disruptions effectively, managers must identify the

causes of uncertainty and design an effective SC based on the management of

information and material flows. Organizational managers need to maintain reliable

relationships between organizations and SC partners (Gadde & Snehota, 2000). Gadde

and Snehota (2000) considered a reliable relationship with suppliers a source of

competitive advantage (Gadde & Snehota, 2000). Such a stable relationship ensures the

availability of the resources that enhance organizational sustainability and reduces any

possible disruptions (Greening & Rutherford, 2011).

RDT provides a framework for recognizing the connection between an

organization and its environment (Esfahbodi, Zhang, & Watson, 2016). One of the

primary hypotheses of RDT is that an organization depends on its environment and its

resources for the accomplishment of both short-term and long-term goals (Kisaka &

Anthony, 2014; Parastuty, Schwarz, Breitenecker, & Harms, 2015). Organizational

managers attain critical resources from external sources outside the organization

(Malatesta & Smith, 2014; Nuruzzaman, 2015), which may result in competitive

advantage (Green, Toms, & Clark, 2015; Nuruzzaman, 2015). Furthermore, RDT

highlights the importance of SCs and the drivers for a sustainable SC (Varsei, Soosay,

Fahimnia, & Sarkis, 2014). To compete effectively in today’s environment,

organizational managers need to create a reliable SC that will deliver high quality, on-

time products and services to customers. Maintaining stable and reliable relationships is a

fundamental step in developing global supply networks (Tachizawa & Yew Wong,

2014). The process of retaining a stable SC is increasingly challenging, but RDT provides

a framework for understanding how an organization can best utilize its environment,

resources, and relationships to provide more reliable products with higher quality.

Malatesta and Smith (2014) explained that organizational managers can use the resource-

based theory to direct organizational strategy from short-term survival to long-term

growth.

Supply Chain Management

A SC is a series of activities involving the flow of products, services, and

information from the primary manufacturer to the customer (Kembro & Näslund, 2014).

Organizational SC have links both within the organization and outside of it, and

organizational managers have less control over the external parts of the SC (Kirovska

Josifovska, & Kiselicki, 2016). SC managers must reduce costs, increase flexibility, and

improve communications to compete in the global market (Tarofder, Marthandan,

Mohan, & Tarofder, 2013). Organizational managers need to use all the resources, tools,

and strategies at their disposal to direct material and information flows inside the

organization and between SC partners (Pashaei & Olhager, 2015). Therefore, managers

must design and organize SC processes to ensure the availability of alternative flows in

case of disorder or disruption (Kirovska et al., 2016). SC design refers to decisions

concerning operating facilities, information flow, inventory, and transportation in the SC

(Prasad, Subbaiah, & Rao, 2014). Because of their dynamic environments and the

continuous changes to technology, managers are required to design a flexible SC capable

of addressing current and future changes and uncertainties.

SC management is the practice of planning, applying, and managing the

operations of a SC efficiently (Kirovska et al., 2016). Organizational managers use SC

management to monitor the purchase of raw materials, the transformation of those

materials into final products, and the delivery of those final products to customers (Prasad

et al., 2014). Kirovska et al. (2016) identify four key advantages of SC management:

better control of suppliers, decreased organizational costs, transparent documentation,

and improved working speed. SC management restructures the negotiation and

contracting process and ensures a secure and stable relationship with suppliers (Sundram,

Chandran, & Bhatti, 2016). Managers deploy SC management to lower organization

costs, increases productivity level, and enhance buyer relations (Sundram et al., 2016).

Finally, SC management benefits employees in the procurement department by removing

unnecessary operations, thus improving efficiency (Kirovska et al., 2016). By using SC

management practices, supply chain managers can increase resource efficiency and

ensure flexibility (Sundram et al., 2016). Supply chain management process provides a

method for coordinating the flow of materials, services, and information among supply

chain partners to match the needs of the organization (Kirovska et al., 2016). Sundram et

al. (2016) stated that information quality, organizational vision and goals, supply

relationships, and information sharing are essential management practices managers

utilize to enhance SC performance.

Additionally, Foerstl et al. (2015) stated that organizational managers could more

efficiently control uncertainties in the supply chain by using supply chain management.

Supply chain management is one of the main sources of competitive advantage (Barros,

Barbosa- Póvoa, & Blanco, 2013). According to Mackelprang, Robinson, Bernardes, and

Webb (2014), managers need to recognize the relationship between supply chain

management and competitive advantage. In addition to creating harmony among supply

chain partners, there are other ways to use management processes to optimize supply

chain performance. The use of information technology is another important part of SC, as

it maintains a reliable relationship among supply chain members through shared

information (Levi-Bliech, Naveh, Pliskin, & Fink, 2018). A managers’ ability to innovate

is an important aspect of leveraging supply chain performance (Lii & Kuo, 2016), and

organizational managers can motivate innovativeness by rewarding the development of

new behaviors and practices (Seo, Dinwoodie, & Kwak, 2014). Managers using

innovation and information technology practices within supply chain management

practices can positively influence supply chain performance (Levi-Bliech et al., 2018).

Effectively managing both the external and internal parts of the supply chain

enhances organizational performance and yields a sustainable competitive advantage

(Arora, Arora, & Sivakumar, 2016). Therefore, supply chain managers are required to

coordinate the activities of suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors to reduce supply

chain costs, increase performance and competitiveness, and meet or exceed customer

expectation. According to Prasad et al. (2014), supply chain management consists of a

series of organized decisions and actions. Managers must focus on coordinating all parts

of the supply chain, including individuals, organizations, resources, operations, and

technology which occupied in designing, manufacturing, selling, and delivering the

products to its users. Additionally, Kirovska et al. (2016) explained that trusted and long-

term relationships are a critical element of the supply chain, and Arora et al. (2016)

concur that supply chain collaboration and integration practices enhance supply chain

harmonization. Any unsuccessful collaboration between external and internal supply

chain partners can negatively influence organization performance (Kirovska et al., 2016).

Stevens and Johnson (2016) stated that managers need to align supply chain activities

with the organization’s competitive strategy and objectives to effectively perform in a

competitive business environment.

Understanding the importance of managing supply chain relays on the nature and

role of the organizational supply chain. Supply chains differ in size, design, and form,

affected by technological changes, the appearance of new products and markets, and

geographical location (MacCarthy, Blome, Olhager, Srai, & Zhao, 2016). Professionally

managing a supply chain adds value to an organization and its market, but to do this,

managers need to be aware of supply chains’ complexity (Kirovska et al., 2016).

Organizations have suppliers that deal with sub-suppliers, distribution centers, and retail

outlets, all of which build supply chains (Kirovska et al., 2016). When searching for new

opportunities to enhance organizational performance and productivity, managers can

open an organization’s supply chain to global markets and new SC partners (Kirovska et

al., 2016). Supply chain management procedures had a significant AND direct positive

influence on supply chain performance (Odongo, Dora, Molnar, Ongeng, & Gellynck,

2016). Ibrahim and Hamid (2014) explained that supply chain management practices,

which include information sharing, supplier management, customers, and delivery

management and integration, obtain a significant positive effect on supply chain

performance. Understanding how globalization, technological knowledge, and changing

markets influence the performance of organizational supply chains is critical to all

organizational managers. Njegomir and Rihter (2015)

stated that organizations with

global supply chain usually encounter with one annual supply chain disruption.

Effectively managing supply chain enhances organizational performance and

yields a sustainable competitive advantage (Arora et al., 2016). Sustainable SC

management indicates how SC managers organize material, information, recourses, and

establish plans and decisions basis on the economic, environmental, and social basis

(Beske & Seuring, 2014; Tseng et al., 2015). According to Ahmad, de Brito, and

Tavasszy (2016), SC managers seek to deploy sustainable SC management procedures to

both the organizational SC and SC participants. Sustainable SC management consider

method managers utilize to identify the challenges of sustainability risks from

organization and value chain perception to enhance sustainable SC performance

(Schaltegger & Burritt, 2014). Functional sustainable SC management procedures

involve establishing a long-term relationship, a collaboration between SC members,

supplier enlargement, and efficient communication between SC members with the

support of top management (Wu, Liao, Tseng, & Chiu, 2016). Maintaining a sustainable

SC may improve organizational efficiency, products quality, employee satisfaction, new

market entree, maintain a superior position in the market and enhance organizational

reputation (Ortas, Moneva, & Alvarez, 2014).

Global Supply Chain and Supply Chain Relationships

Due to globalization and the expansion of SC networks, proper management of

global supply chains is an essential step for any organization. A global SC involves

several companies in different geographical situations, directed by suitable control and

management among different SC partners (Choi, 2018). Choi (2018) states that it is

essential for organizational managers to select appropriate SC members and connect them

through appropriate technological applications to guarantee efficient global SC

operations that matched market conditions (Choi, 2018). The global SC is more

complicated and difficult to control due to the differences in the culture, language, laws,

and currency between each (Fabbe-Costes, Roussat, Taylor, & Taylor, 2014). When

entering a new market, managers need to offer an economic reward to a local supplier,

which guarantees a contract with higher transaction volumes (Usui, Kotabe, & Murray,

2017).

The high level of competition and uncertainty in the markets force organizational

managers to seek to decrease product cost while increasing quality (Usui et al., 2017).

Managers need to partner with suppliers in developing economies to create a SC system

that provides reliable, high-quality products while reducing operational cost (Usui et al.,

2017). Maintaining proper relationships with suppliers may enhance the efficiency of

organization operations and strategic decision-making (Usui et al., 2017). An

organization with an effective decision-making process boast a higher performance in the

global market (Usui et al., 2017). There must exist a close, long-term partnership between

the organization and the selected suppliers to elicit supportive behavior (Usui et al.,

2017). In addition, managers develop their organization’s competitive advantage by

obtaining resources internal and external relationships (Usui et al., 2017). Building strong

relationships between an organization and its supply chain partners may create a

favorable environment for shared benefits and decreased transactional costs (Usui et al.,

2017). Usui et al. (2017) stated that organizational managers need to use the long-term

relationship as an investment to obtain a high level of control over SC partners

relationships. To ensure collaborative relationships with suppliers, managers must exhibit

the right level of authority and control (Usui et al., 2017).

Flexible relationships in SC management have three advantages: (a) it offers

strategic alternatives for decision making. (b) It helps prevent SC partners from engaging

in opportunistic behaviors; and (c) it enhances supplier performance as a result of

competition between SC partners (Usui et al., 2017). Usui et al. (2017) explain that

having only one partner can result in an inflexible relationship between the organization

and its supplier, as it may limit the possible options for both sides. Organizations that

maintain control in the market have more opportunities to trade with new partners who

hold innovative technology and enhanced conditions (Usui et al., 2017).

Global supply chains are also subject to higher risk than local supply chains, due

to the different taxes, exchange rates, customs clearance, transportation prices, and trade

difficulties (Steven, Dong, & Corsi, 2014). Managing the flow of the material within the

global SC is more complicated than in a local SC (Steven et al., 2014). Managers must

understand the critical influence of government stability and infrastructure in countries

that are involved in global supply chains (Steven et al., 2014). According to Liu, Wang

and Chen (2017), global supply chain managers must learn to consider product cost and

quality, and customer reaction, while in the local SC, managers may control the product

without these considerations (Liu et al., 2017). The benefit of globalization is that

organizational managers with the global SC can attain a higher return compared to the

local SC (Huo et al., 2015).

Managers operate in globalized markets and expand their networks internationally

to obtain a high financial performance, increased market shares, functioning efficiency,

and increased brand awareness and availability (Huo et al., 2015). Global supply chains

involve four aspects that influence the global environment: (a) global market forces, (b)

technological forces, (c) global cost forces, and (d) global political authority and

economic forces (Tannous & Yoon, 2018). Local political authority and cost forces

influence the local SC (Tannous & Yoon, 2018). Additionally, controlling information

within the global SC in is more complicated than in the local SC (Kumar & Banerjee,

2014). According to Zhu and Morgan (2018), to understand the influence of global

supply chains on organizations, managers need to recognize how to manage the different

styles of global SC relations and authority procedures at suppliers’ workplaces (Zhu &

Morgan, 2018). Global suppliers from different geographical locations operate in

conditions different from the local labor market and local institutional frameworks (Zhu

& Morgan, 2018). Managers in the global SC must focus on all the factors that affect and

influence the global SC network to ensure efficient performance and maintain strong

relationships. Sawik (2018) explained that continuous monitoring and evaluating the

implemented SC disruption risk management processes is important for all organizations.

Supply Chain Disruptions

Globalization and international trade may enhance an organization’s ability to

expand its supply chains while entering new markets, decreasing production costs, and

increasing competitiveness. The performance of global supply chains expands SC

networks and increase organization exposure to SC disruptions (Bode & Wagner, 2015;

Paul et al., 2015). SC disruption has increased in frequency and intensity and led to more

significant consequences (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014). SC disruption can include any

combination of unintended and unpredictable incidents in the SC network (Bode &

Wagner, 2015), from natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, or hurricanes to human

actions such as industrial accidents and terrorist strikes (Snyder et al., 2016). Natural

disasters and plant fires occur less frequently but exert a critical influence on

organizations (Schlegel, 2015). According to Iakovou, Vlachos, Keramydas, and Partsch

(2014), the assessed global economic losses of natural and human-made disasters is

around $960 US billion.

SC disruptions might be a result of outsourcing, fluctuations in demand, reduction

in inventory, and technological innovations (Konig & Spinler, 2016). Schlegel (2015)

explained that SC disruptions could be a result of customer demand instability,

bankruptcy, distribution problems, time delay, inventory shortages, and quality problems.

Snyder et al. (2016) stated that the just-in-time method had increased supply chains’

vulnerability to disruptions when outsourcing. SC disruptions can also result from weak

communication between suppliers and manufacturers, labor strikes, government

regulations, and industrial accidents (Macdonald & Corsi, 2013). In sum, SC disruption is

a commonly unexpected occurrence that can affect the flow of goods or services and

cause undesirable outcomes for normal SC processes (Tse et al., 2016).

SC disruptions may affect an organization’s procedures, performance

responsiveness, costs, and service levels (Srivastava et al., 2015). Additionally, SC

disruption may have negative results on SC members (Blackhurst, Dunn, & Craighead,

2011). These disruptions cause more challenges for SC managers, who must react and

respond to disruption effects (Ivanov, 2017). According to Snyder et al. (2016), managers

consider SC disruption as an important topic because of its influence on the financial

positions of individual organizations and its overall economic impact. In any case,

practices surrounding outsourcing and globalization have increased the need for reliable

procedures to enhance SC performance and manage disruption risks (Sawik, 2016).

These procedures can assist managers in choosing appropriate suppliers, assigning order

quantities, and scheduling customer orders in the wake of disruption (Sawik, 2016). It is

imperative to try to recognize, forecast, avoid, and manage disruptions (Ivanov, Mason,

& Hart, 2016).

Some SC disruptions may be unavoidable; Snyder et al. (2016) state that SC

disruptions will exist if supply chains exist. However, successful managers try to identify

potential causes that result in SC disruption and sustain effective operations in SC

(Scheibe & Blackhurst, 2018). When disruptions spread throughout an organization,

negative effects can increase in severity (Scheibe & Blackhurst, 2018). Managers must

cultivate the ability to identify potential SC disruptions and proactively address the

factors that cause SC disruptions (Scheibe & Blackhurst, 2018), as this will increase the

chances of managing disruption and preventing it in the future (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014).

Managers must maintain relationships with potential suppliers that can help reduce SC

disruptions (Sawik, 2017). Without these practices, SC disruption may cause a decline in

sales growth, stock returns, and shareholder value (Snyder et al., 2016). The effects of SC

disruption may last for as long as two years (Snyder et al., 2016). Additionally, delivery

performance, business procedures, and demand fluctuations are significant triggers of SC

disruptions (Pradhan & Routroy, 2014). In addition to the financial losses, a continued

disruption can cause an organization to shut down (Kumar et al., 2014). Schlegel (2015)

states that disruption can cause a decline in operating income of up to 107%, 6.9%

decrease in sales growth, and 10.66% increase in cost. SC disruptions can negatively

affect an organization’s brand value and customer loyalty (Chakravarty, 2013),

organizational strategies and marketing activities (Zhao, Huo, Sun, & Zhao, 2013). The

frequent incidence of SC disruptions requires managers attention to create improved

strategies to mitigate the influences of SC disruption.

Supply Chain Risk Management

Qazi et al. (2018) defined supply chain risk management as the collaboration

between organization partners, stakeholders, and key decision makers to identify and

manage risks and uncertainties throughout the SC network. Outsourcing, the short life

cycles of products, supply base reduction, and just-in-time are some trends organizational

managers use, which expose the organization to SC risks (Trkman, Oliveira, &

McCormack, 2016). SC risk can result from human errors or natural disasters, causing

critical concerns for organizations’ financial position and operational activities (Rajesh,

Ravi, & Rao, 2015). Fan and Stevenson (2018) stated that supply chain risk management

(SCRM) consider critical issues that managers need to understand and recognize.

Managers use SCRM to create strategies to identify, evaluate, manage, and observe the

risks in supply chains (Ho et al., 2015). Managing risk within supply chains requires one

to consider important issues in supply chain management, as well as the significance of

the actions of supply chain managers.

Uncertainty in organization environment existed in natural disasters and the risks

in the organization’s process. Uncertainty in organization environment compels

organizational managers to consider supply chain risk management as a fundamental

aspect of supply chain procedures and networks. Liu, Wang, and Chen (2017) explained

that supply chain risk and uncertainty negatively influence organizational performance.

Pournader et al. (2016) stated that organizational managers must identify and manage

risks in a supply chain; moreover, managers cannot prevent and avoid supply chain

disruptions and function in a risk-free environment. Supply chain risk managers may

choose prevention and mitigation strategies, depending on the degree of uncertainty and

risk in the supply chain (Rajesh et al., 2015). Tse et al. (2016) explained that uncertainty

in demand and product quality negatively relate to disruption risk.

Organizational managers must evaluate the risks associated with the organization

and establish contingency plans to mitigate the influence of disruptions and maintain

organization stability (Cagnin et al., 2016). It behooves managers to control and manage

risk in the supply chain to effectively compete in the market and improve the

organization’s position in the market (Fan & Stevenson, 2018). Managers can employ

SCRM to decrease organizational costs, increase profitability, organizational stability,

and ensure organizational growth (Fan & Stevenson, 2018). Effectively implementing

and utilizing SCRM assists organizational managers in obtaining a competitive advantage

for their firms (Fan & Stevenson, 2018). Tannous and Yoon (2018) stated that while

targeting for competitive advantage and seeking access to global marketplaces,

organizational managers may expose an organization to significant risk. Managers use

and adopt an SCRM approach to identify, manage, and control risk and uncertainties in

the organization (Cagnin et al., 2016). Organizational managers use supply chain risk

management to allocate risk resources, measure risk effects, understand risk factors, and

mitigate supply chain risk (Pradhan & Routroy, 2014). Konig and Spinler (2016) stated

that risk monitoring and contingency planning is another significant part of supply chain

risk management.

Carter, Rogers, and Choi (2015) explained the applied conceptual theory building

approach to recognizing six foundational principles about supply chain structure and its

limits. The six principles of the supply chain are: (a) the supply chain is a network built

of nodes and relations; (b) the supply chain operates as a complex adaptive system. (c)

The supply chain is suitable for one particular product and organization; (d) the supply

chain involves both a physical supply chain and a supportive supply chain. (e) An

organizational manager perspective limits the supply chain, and finally (f) a managers

perspective is limited by organization physical distance, cultural distance, and uniqueness

(Carter et al., 2015).

According to Konig and Spinler (2016), the main source of risk in the

organizational supply chain involves disruption risks and operational risks. Supply chain

operational risks involve process, supply, control, and demand risks (Parihar & Rahul,

2014). Disruption risk results from human-made error and natural disasters, so they are

more difficult to forecast than operational risks (Konig & Spinler, 2016). Organizational

managers employ risk management practices to identify and mitigate strategic and

operational risks (Boyson, 2014). SCRM is the process of risk identification, assessment,

treatment, and monitoring, utilizing internal tools, methods and strategies with external

coordination and collaboration of supply chain members, thereby decreasing weakness

and increasing profitability (Fan & Stevenson, 2018).

Managers must effectively employ a risk management process to evaluate risk in

the organization (Gualandris & Kalchschmidt, 2015). Effectively managing supply chain

risk enhances improvement in organizational supply chain performance (Simangunsong,

Hendry, & Stevenson, 2016). Gualandris and Kalchschmidt (2015) stated that

implementing an effective supply chain risk management practices leads to achieve a

competitive advantage, which means that a positive relationship exists between SCRM

practice and competitive advantage. Organizational managers must balance supply chain

risk management with environmental conditions while creating an organizational

competitive advantage (Gualandris & Kalchschmidt, 2015). Managers deploy SCRM to

effectively mitigate risk by evaluating risk probability and level and measure disruption

influence on a given supply chain (Kaki, Salo, & Talluri, 2015).

Organizational managers must understand and recognize how to control and

manage risk in the organization by utilizing supply chain risk management, thereby

producing value for the supply chain (Trkman et al., 2016). Supply chain complexity and

the uncertainty related to supply chain risk consider the main factors causing difficulties

to supply chain managers to accurately identify risk sources (Kumar et al., 2014). Kumar

et al. (2014) suggested that multi-sourcing, price and promotion planning, the make-and-

buy approach, and assortment planning strategies mitigate supply chain disruption.

Chang, Ellinger, and Blackhurst (2015) recommended that supply chain managers need

to use a mix of redundancy flexible risk mitigation strategy. Rajesh, Ravi, and Rao

(2015) address five of the most useful mitigation strategies to reduce risk influence on the

supply chain: (a) obtaining insurance, (b) decreasing bullwhips, (c) increasing resilience,

(d) enhancing collaboration and (d) managing revenue.

SCRM may reflect the character of risk management and supply chain

management (SCM), which provide a general understanding of SCRM to assist managers

in solving business problems (Fan & Stevenson, 2018). According to Giannakis and

Papadopoulos (2016), SCRM process includes five sequential steps: (a) risk

identification, (b) risk assessment, (c) risk analysis, (d) risk treatment, and (e) risk

monitoring. Managers to control SC risk proactively utilize risk identification to address

the important risks within the supply chain and identify any future uncertainties to the

organization. Neiger et al. (2009) explained that risk identification is a crucial step to

manage SCRs successfully. Allocating risk within SC help managers to identify and

activate the best risk management action (Fan & Stevenson, 2018). Enyinda, Mbah, and

Ogbuehi (2010) stated that managers need an initial judgment in risk identification to

assess whether the risk within SC is significant and need more assessment and mitigation

actions. Managers must identify risk and understand the factors causing risk in the supply

chain to accurately design risk treatment plans (Fan & Stevenson, 2018).

Managers to attain an effective SCRM need an overall, quick, and cost-efficient

assessment of supply chain risk management (Zsidisin et al., 2004). Managers must

prioritize risk, so they may appropriately recognize the most significant risks (Fan &

Stevenson, 2018). Fan and Stevenson (2018) identify two risk drivers: probability and

impact drivers. Probability drivers are competitive pressure with risk-source

consequences (Ritchie & Brindley, 2007), which may raise or reduce supply chain

exposure to risk (Wagner & Bode, 2006). Impact drivers are situations with risk-

consequence implications (Wagner & Bode, 2006) that influence the amount of loss (Fan

& Stevenson, 2018). Some risk drivers are partnerships and other close relationships (Li

et al., 2015; Chen, Su, & Ro, 2016), which may both be probability and impact drivers

(Fan & Stevenson, 2018). Managers can measure risk within SC by using data,

professional judgment, and formats (Cohen & Kunreuther, 2007), additionally, managers

can use formal or informal and quantitative or qualitative methods (Zsidisin et al., 2004).

Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006) stated that risk assessment is subjective to researchers and

managers own understanding of what creates the risk and the nature of relationships

within SC.

In risk assessment, managers need to focus on SCR prioritization (Fan &

Stevenson, 2018). According to Tsai et al. (2008), using both objective data and

subjective perception can enhance the effectiveness of risk estimation and assessment.

Risk prioritization assists managers in choosing the appropriate risk treatment plan,

matching organization resources and evaluating the degree of supply risks (Guertler &

Spinler, 2015) and apply effective risk management activities (Sarker et al., 2016).

Researchers consider risk as a connected and scatter incident within SC and obtain inter-

relationships with other risks, which can influence an organization (Kayis & Karningsih,

2012). Understanding risk effects and inter-relationships assists managers with risk

prioritization and to evaluate the criticality of supply risks (Guertler & Spinler, 2015).

Furthermore, managers with the ability to understand risk and relationships can

provide risk treatment plans (Chopra & Sodhi, 2004), and implement effective risk

management activities. Venkatesh et al. (2015) stated that the main concept is to identify

the most serious risk that can lead to multiple risks causing a critical effect on SC. Sarker

et al. (2016) stated that different types of dependencies exist among risks in SC, the

positive dependence, where eliminating one risk assists in mitigating one or several risks.

However, negative dependence exists when removing one risk may produce one or

several other risks.

Organizational managers are unable to avoid and deal with all possible risk, so

they must consider risk treatment as an investment for the organization (Fan &

Stevenson, 2018). Fan and Stevenson (2018) provide five general risk treatment types:

risk acceptance, avoidance, transfer, sharing, and mitigation. Additionally, Fan and

Stevenson (2018) stated that there is no standard level of how much risk managers should

accept depending on a manager’s ability to become involved in risky behavior and

acknowledge the result of decisions related to the risk at hand (Park & Park, 2016).

Managers must continuously monitor and follow risk within their organization to

guarantee the results of risk remain controlled and do not increase (Aqlan & Lam, 2015).

Organizational managers attempt to avoid and mitigate risk in the supply chain, reducing

or removing the source of the risk (Aqlan & Lam, 2015). For example, if supply is

untrustworthy, organizational managers can terminate products, suppliers, or markets

(Hajmohammad & Vachon, 2016).

In case of an unexpected disruption, organizational managers and suppliers may

suffer from different types of risk and financial difficulty, producing supply shortage and

a loss to the organization and the whole supply chain (Li, Zhen, Qi, & Cai, 2016).

Organizational managers try to transfer business disruption risks through business

disruption insurance (Li et al., 2016) as a method of risk transfer. Managers use risk

transfer to the relocated responsibility for disruption risk to a different party than the

organization (Diabat et al., 2012). However, Aqlan and Lam (2015) explained that risk

transfer is more appropriate for disruption risks with a small probability and high impact

(natural disasters and terrorist attacks) than for operational risks with a high probability

and low impact. Additionally, managers attempt to share disruption risk with other parties

in SC. Buzacott and Peng (2012) stated that risk could be shared by obtaining agreements

to outline responsibilities for any potential changes related to risks and by developing

relationships (Camuffo, Furlan, Romano, & Vinelli, 2007). Risk transfer and risk sharing

are suitable for dealing with a low probability and high impact risk to decrease the costs

(Lai, Debo, & Sycara, 2009) and boost customer service levels (Scheller-Wolf and Tayur,

2009). Furthermore, managers try to reduce risk to an acceptable level, for both the

probability of risk to happen and its consequences (Norrman & Jansson, 2004). Aqlan

and Lam (2015) consider mitigation strategies to be appropriate for operational risks with

high probability and low effect.

The selection of a risk mitigation strategy depends on the given organization’s

budget and risk type (Tummala & Schoenherr, 2011). Forming relationships and

enhancing collaboration within the supply chain can improve the effectiveness of an

SCRM (Hallikas & Lintukangas, 2016). Few researchers have emphasized how managers

can utilize effective relationships to manage probable SCRs (Chen et al., 2016).

Managers deploy SCRM to ensure organization profitability (Faisal et al., 2007), save

costs (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008), and generate value (Trkman et al., 2016). Organizational

managers need to continuously monitor risk in the supply chain, as well as assess the

source of the risk and strategies deployed to control risk. Talluri et al. (2013) stated that

managers are obtaining effective strategies within all risk types directly to increase

supply chain responsiveness. Organizational managers should recognize, understand, and

control risks to attain competitive advantage. Managers who are deploying supply chain

practices can enhance customer satisfaction by decreasing the possibility and severity of

supply chain risk. Fan and Stevenson (2018) explained that organizations with limited

resources need to address the best process and time to utilize these resources to avoid risk

and reduce their scarceness.

Supply Chain Collaboration

Supply chain collaboration described interorganizational partnership process in

which two or more independent parties work together to organize, align and fulfill supply

chain operations to operate a value-added method for the fulfillment of mutual goals and

benefits (Liao et al. 2017). Supply chain collaboration represents the organizational

relationship among supply chain members to align supply chain processes, share

information, and establish a value-added procedure (Hofer et al., 2014). Supply chain

collaboration is summarized in the interactive coordinated decision-making process,

information sharing, two-way communication, and goal sharing (Scholten & Schilder,

2015). Arora et al. (2016) stated that collaboration includes essential elements as

coordination, adaptation, establishing a relationship, and share benefits and outcomes

within supply chain members. Managers are seeking for more integrative and

collaborative efforts due to evolving technologies, the need to cope with high demand

uncertainties, and the need to share costs and risks (Kache & Seuring, 2014).

Supply chain collaboration consider a method to enhance an organizations’

performance along with organizations’ supply chains (Panahifar, Byrne, Salam, &

Heavey, 2018). Kache and Seuring (2014) declared a direct positive relationship between

the collaboration within the supply chain members and the overall supply chain

performance. Panahifar et al. (2018) explained that supply chain collaboration constitutes

an effective method for organizational managers to implement in order to overcome

organizational challenges in a competitive environment. In supply chain collaboration,

organizational managers and SC partners exchange information to make mutual or

tactical decisions to gain more benefits from collaborating (Panahifar et al., 2018).

According to Panahifar et al. (2018), a positive correlation exists between supply chain

collaboration and an organization’s performance. Liao et al. (2017) stated that

collaboration constitutes an essential method in any environment to complete

assignments and accomplish common objectives. Organizational managers need to work

together and collaborate to obtain better resources and gain more access to limited

resources (Liao et al., 2017).

Collaboration constitutes an important approach to supply chain management, as

organizational managers are required to collaborate with other organizations and search

external environments for opportunities to guarantee that the supply chain will be

effective and responsive to dynamic market requirements (Liao et al., 2017).

Organizational managers attempt to attain superior supply chain collaboration to control

their suppliers’ and customers’ resources and information (Masten & Kim, 2015).

Managers with superior supply chain collaboration can achieve a stronger competitive

position in the market (Masten & Kim, 2015). Additionally, organizational managers

utilize supply chain collaboration to lower organizational uncertainty, attain a

competitive advantage, and maintain organizational success (Aggarwal & Srivastava,

2016). Wu & Chiu (2018) explained that supply chain collaboration is a significant

process to achieve smooth coordination among SC partners, which affects organizational

performance. Supply chain collaboration methods promote the sharing of information

among SC partners (Panahifar et al., 2018), which guarantees a faster response to changes

in the market, increased organization flexibility and reduces inventory, transportation,

and manufacturing costs (Hofmann, 2017; Gunasekaran, Subramanian, & Rahman,

2017). Arora et al. (2016) explained that collaboration has three elements: (a)

coordination, (b) adaptation, and (c) relationship building. The major forms of

collaboration are strategic alliances, joint ventures, networks, and cooperative procedures

(Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Managers seek to increase SC collaboration to manage

demand uncertainties and share costs and risks (Kache & Seuring, 2017). Managers

utilize SC collaboration to enhance service levels, improve customer satisfaction, gain

access to resources, locate opportunities, and obtain advanced knowledge and

information (Kumar & Banerjee, 2014). Soosay and Hyland (2015) explained that supply

chain collaboration enhances and improves organization performance because of sharing

the resources, capabilities, and procedures among supply chain partners. Furthermore,

Zhu, Krikke, & Caniëls (2016) consider collaboration as a valuable strategy manager can

utilize to react to supply chain disruptions and mitigate its effects quickly.

Panahifar et al. (2018) identified four critical enablers to form SC collaboration:

ensured the sharing of information, level of trust, information accuracy, and readiness.

Panahifar, Byrne, and Heavey (2015) highlight the importance of forming a secure

sharing of information in SC collaboration, as it influences the trust between SC partners.

Organizational managers are required to balance information sharing and the security of

strategic information to attain the best collaboration within SC (Panahifar et al., 2018).

Soosay and Hyland (2015) believed that the foundation of any collaboration is the trust

among partners and their ability to share the rewards and risks, which results in better

profitability and performance for the organizations. Additionally, trust constitutes the

main enabler of collaboration and emphasizes the value of social relationships in a

partnership (Panahifar et al., 2018).

Supply chain collaboration through information-sharing delivered different

advantages for an organization’s partners, such as the enhancement of forecasting

accuracy, improvement in customer service quality, and building strong relationships

between partners (Panahifar et al., 2018). Fu, Ionescu, Aghezzaf, & De Keyser (2016)

identified information accuracy as a valuable sign of information quality in collaborative

planning. Furthermore, inventory, demand, forecasts, production, and shipment

information need to be accurate and timely to ensure an effective SC collaboration

(Panahifar et al., 2018). Panahifar et al. (2018) stated that effective collaboration depends

on information readiness and SC partners’ ability to communicate effectively.

Researchers define information readiness as the data available to organizations from their

partners within SC (Panahifar et al., 2018). In addition, researchers claimed that

information readiness could significantly improve the level of trust (Panahifar et al.,

2015). Organizational managers need to enhance information security to encourage SC

partners to share their accurate information in a secure environment (Panahifar et al.,

2018). Managers are required to ensure the secure sharing of information, information

accuracy, timely sharing of information, and information readiness to improve the

success of SC collaboration, increase the level of trust among partners, and build trustful

relationships (Panahifar et al., 2018).

Managers attempt to obtain an effective collaboration within the supply chain to

improve the organization’s performance, sales growth, customer satisfaction, and overall

operational performance (Panahifar et al., 2018). Durach, Wieland, Jose, and Machuca

(2015) consider trust and communication important aspects of supply chain collaboration

and supply chain readiness. Revilla and Knoppen (2015) explained that effective

communication, positive past collaboration, and personal bonds are the foundation of

trust between buyers and their suppliers (Revilla & Knoppen, 2015). Furthermore, the

amount of information shared among supply chain partners depends on the level of trust

(Soosay & Hyland, 2015). Managers’ ability to share information and benefits among SC

partners shapes and affects supply chain collaboration and constitutes the main element

of collaborative relationships (Zhu et al., 2016). Fawcett, McCarter, Fawcett, Webb, and

Magnan (2015) stated that the absence of collaboration among supply chain partners

results from conflicts among SC partners’ strategies, low trust, resistance to sharing

information, and weak systems connectivity. According to Liao et al. (2017), supply

chain information-sharing constitutes a significant external element that influences the

effectiveness of a manager’s ability to deploy innovative techniques in the organization’s

supply chain. Additionally, the amount of information shared by supply chain partners

through collaborative relationships may enhance the effectiveness of supply chain

capability (Liao et al., 2017). Organizational capability describes organizational

managers’ ability to allocate, use, and integrate both internal and external resources and

information (Liao et al., 2017).

According to Aggarwal and Srivastava (2016), the basic forms of supply chain

collaboration are supplier selection, joint planning, and information sharing. Furthermore,

supply chain efficiency and waste reduction are the major outcomes of collaboration

(Aggarwal & Srivastava, 2016). Aggarwal and Srivastava (2016) explained that

developing collaborative practices results in benefits for buyers and sellers and the whole

industry. Interorganizational relationships maintain a critical role in reducing the

influence of supply chain uncertainty (Teller, Kotzab, Grant, & Holweg, 2016).

Organizational managers seek to establish and sustain coordination of the supply chain to

decrease organizations uncertainty and increase access to essential resources (Dries,

Gorton, Urutyan, & White, 2014). According to Storer, Hyland, Ferrer, Santa, and

Griffiths (2014), managers utilize strategic supplier partnerships to plan and develop

supply chain responsiveness effectively. Teller et al. (2016) stated that key supplier

relationship management is the main variable that influences the implementation of

supply chain management within the organization. Qrunfleh and Tarafdar (2013)

identified a direct relationship between supplier partnerships and supply chain

responsiveness.

SC innovation can reinforce the organizations’ supply chain capability to attain

competitive advantage (Liao et al., 2017). Innovation in supply chain collaboration

provides an information-transparent platform, which managers utilize to compete

effectively in a competitive market (Liao et al., 2017). SC partners deploy innovation in

supply chain collaboration to produce product differentiation, meet the market demand

more quickly, produce high-quality products, provide a fast delivery system, enhance

workflow efficiency, and simplify production procedures, all of which boosts

organizations’ competitiveness (Liao et al., 2017). Managers develop supply chain

integration to manage the supply of raw materials, improve the inventory management

system, and reduce production costs (Liao et al., 2017). Liao et al. (2017) stated that

managers could utilize innovation in supply chain collaboration to improve a firm’s

competitive advantage through supply chain capabilities. Organizational managers seek

to utilize collaboration in innovation and new product development to accomplish several

advantages, such as providing services or products at a lower cost, with high quality and

reduced cycle time, and obtaining effective procedures (Soosay & Hyland, 2015).

Knoppen, Johnston, and Saenz (2015) asserted that managers’ ability to recognize and

utilize innovations and take advantage of collaboration results in a significant capability

for collaborative organizations.

Supply Chain Responsiveness

SC are considered an essential aspect of an organization’s environment to

coordinate different business units and match supply with demand (Hum, Parlar, & Zhou,

2018). Globalization imposed several challenges and increased the complexity of supply

chains and supply chain management, affecting supply chain responsiveness to satisfy

customer demands (Hum et al., 2018). Hum et al. (2018) defined supply chain

responsiveness as the possibility of satisfying a customer’s order within a quoted lead-

time. Managers need to decide the appropriate balance between SC efficiency and

responsiveness to accomplish a strategic fit and align the organization’s SC design with

their competitive strategy (AlHusain, & Khorramshahgol, 2018). Organizational

managers seek and attempt to be responsive as needed by the market while trying to be

efficient at the same time (AlHusain, & Khorramshahgol, 2018). According to Taylor and

Vachon (2018), responsiveness involves such topics as quantity, diversity, time,

innovation, and service level, where efficiency concerns such matters as reducing cost

and lowering waste. Singh (2015) describe SC responsiveness as SC’s ability to be

flexible and quickly respond and adjust its products, features, volume, and delivery to

changes in the market. Organization’s SC performance relies on the performance of the

entire value chain partners (Singh, 2015). Organizational managers to maintain a

responsive supply chain need to obtain a coordinated method to supply chain

management and recognize when it is essential to eliminate non-value adding activities in

SC (Singh, 2015).

Supply chain comprises multipart structures, and managers are required to

evaluate and boost the organization’s capability to fulfill customer needs within a specific

time and cost (Hum et al., 2018). SC managers seek to control product manufacturing,

assembly, inspection, and delivery before satisfying customers’ requirements (Hum et al.,

2018). Organizational managers seek to ensure the achievement of organizational

responsiveness, which allows organizations to promptly detect any market changes,

redesign organizational procedures to match new market needs, share information among

organizational partners, gain the most advantage from information processing systems,

make new products and process technologies before competitors do (Singh, 2015).

Managers need to understand and acknowledge organizational conditions and

environments, which impact the organization’s ability to react to environmental change

promptly. Additionally, managers utilize SCM to direct SC partners to ensure SC

responsiveness (Singh, 2015). Managers with a responsive SC are better able to reduce

the organizational lead time and service reliability and ensure a quick and flexible

response.

Supply chain design or strategy is the process of managing organizational

resources to fit SC capability and matching competitive organizational strategy and to

balance between SC efficiency and responsiveness (AlHusain & Khorramshahgol, 2018).

SC design mainly focuses on the general structure of the SC network and on what each

different stage of the SC will accomplish (AlHusain, & Khorramshahgol, 2018). Prasad

et al. (2014) explained that supply chain design focus on the decisions concerning

operating facilities, information flow, inventory, and transportation in the supply chain.

The standard decisions in SC design focus on which products to produce, factory location

and size, transportation method, inventory level, and trade-offs between them (AlHusain,

& Khorramshahgol, 2018). Organizational managers seek to design a sustainable supply

chain, where the manager’s goals are to decrease basic costs, any potential sources of

losses (Samet, Bouzembrak, & Lefèvre, 2017). Additionally, researchers verified the

effectiveness of SC design by the alignment level between organizational goals and

competitive strategy to satisfy customer demands (AlHusain, & Khorramshahgol, 2018).

AlHusain and Khorramshahgol (2018) categorized SC drivers into logistical and cross-

functional. Logistic SC drivers concern the factory, inventory, and transportation, while

cross-functional drivers include information, sourcing, and pricing (AlHusain, &

Khorramshahgol, 2018).

Responsiveness is one of the fundamental performing features that organizational

managers are required to deal with, a factor that arises from today’s dynamic markets

(Moyano-Fuentes, Sacristán-Díaz, & Garrido-Vega, 2016). Organizational managers seek

to ensure the achievement of organizational responsiveness, which allows organizations

to notice any market changes directly, redesign organizational procedures to match new

market needs, share information among organizational partners, gain the most advantage

from information processing systems and make new products and process technologies

before competitors do (Singh, 2015). Organizational managers are forced to respond to

changing customer requests because of increasing product variety, shortening life cycles,

demanding competition, and the global marketplace. Therefore, responsiveness to

customer requests constitutes a critical competitive factor in the current business

environment (Danese, Romano, & Formentini, 2013). Moyano-Fuentes et al. (2016)

identify responsiveness as the ability to provide customers with the right products at the

right time, which is the primary objective of any supply chain. The supply chain performs

the central role in organizational performance and achieving a flexible and more speedy

supply chain is an important factor in improving responsiveness, which is considered the

most significant competitive capability in today’s dynamic environment (Moyano-

Fuentes et al., 2016). Organizational managers need to understand that creating value for

the organization depends on the manager’s ability to manage and smooth out the

integration and alignment of internal organization processes and the processes between

different partners (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2016). Managers need to enhance their ability

to resolve any possible conflicts with external trading partners and to understand the

effect of internal integration on external integration (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2016).

Managers can utilize the positive effects that result from internal integration to improve

integration with suppliers and customers (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2016). Seth and

Panigrahi (2015) supported the work of Moyano-Fuentes et al. (2016) as managers face

many challenges that result from customized customer demands, product variety,

packaging presentations, and the need to quickly produce products or services without

compromising quality and delivery.

Supply chain responsiveness (SCR) is a crucial factor in the dynamic ﬂuctuating

market due to the product’s short life cycle, changing customer preferences, availability

of upgraded alternatives products, product proliferation, and inventory issues due to

different package sizes and service level requirements. Singh (2015) explained that the

globalized economy, product lifecycle, changing customer demands, and the decrease in

lead time increases the need to achieve a responsiveness supply chain. Therefore, an

organizational manager’s ability to quickly respond to changes in the external

environment is a crucial factor in an organization’s performance (Singh, 2015).

Organizational managers need to control internal operations effectively to enable SC

responsiveness to market requirements and changes (Singh, 2015). Singh (2015)

identified top management dedication, development of strategies and resources,

technology, risk-and-reward sharing as the main drivers for a responsive SC. A

manager’s ability to control the drivers of the supply chain can be utilized to benefit the

organization’s inventory management, lead time reduction, and agility (Singh, 2015).

Organizational managers need to effectively deploy coordination strategies to

help in managing organization interdependency, reduce uncertainty, and improve

performance (Kumar & Kumar Singh, 2017). Singh (2015) explained that top

management commitment, strategy development, resource development, technology, and

risk-and-reward sharing are the main drivers for a responsive SC. Additionally,

collaboration, information sharing, and the involvement of suppliers and customers in

decision making can assist in improving the coordination of the supply chain (Kumar &

Kumar Singh, 2017). Kumar and Kumar Singh (2017) explained that managers’ ability to

effectively coordinate cross business activities is a critical step to prevent productions

delays, increase in costs, and quality problems. According to Sahu, Datta, and Mahapatra

(2016), there is an increased need for more agility in supply chains to increase the

importance and frequency of supplier and partner assessment and benchmarking decision

making. Sundram et al. (2016) stated that the association of strategic supply partnerships,

information sharing, customer relations management, and SCP assists managers to

effectively implement the different modules of supply chain management practices for

supply chain integration and performance. In addition, Gunasekaran et al. (2016)

acknowledged that information and communication technologies are crucial significant

resources for the success of global supply chain networks.

Due to the dynamic environment and the continuous change in customers and

market requirements, organizational managers need to maintain a responsive SC, and as a

result of a lack of responsiveness in the SC, managers may not be able to sustain

competitiveness (Singh, 2015). According to Morita, Machuca, Flynn, & Pérez de Los

Ríos, (2015), organizational managers need to improve the four SC strategy plans:

shorten lead time, increase JIT control, improve the quality, and stabilize demand, which

will allow the organization to maintain high competence over time. Singh (2015)

explained supply chain lead time as the time the SC spent to process the raw materials

and semi-finished or finished products to arrive at the final products and deliver them to

customers, which includes supplier lead time, manufacturing lead time, distribution lead

time, and logistics lead time. Researchers highlight the importance of lead time because

of its ability to create a competitive advantage in the SC by reducing inventory levels and

costs and enhancing service and product quality delivered to customers (Singh, 2015).

Singh (2015) also explained the importance of mutual trust among SC partners and risk-

and-reward sharing and how it affects SC coordination, information sharing about

inventory, demand, and product quality. According to Li et al. (2015), by utilizing

information sharing and risk sharing managers can improve an organization’s financial

performance. Information sharing effectiveness method result forms the SC partners’

relationship length and supplier trust, while risk sharing is strengthened by understanding

SCRM (Li et al., 2015).

Singh (2015) identified several factors to maintain a responsive SC: top

management commitment, strategy development, resource development, trust

development, information sharing between SC partners, risk and reward sharing,

collaborative decision making, use of IT technology, coordinated SC, inventory

management, lead time reduction, mutual vision and goals and long-term relationships

among SC partners. However, Thatte, Dhumal, and Agrawal (2018) stated that SC

responsiveness consists of three parts: (1) order construct operations system

responsiveness, (2) logistics process responsiveness, (3) and supplier network

responsiveness. Researchers describe operations system responsiveness as the

organizational manufacturing system’s ability to identify changes in customer demand

(Thatte et al., 2013), react to changes in product volume, act rapidly in response to

unexpected incidents, and effectively accelerate emergency or unexpected customer

orders and requests (Thatte et al., 2018). Additionally, researchers identify supplier

network responsiveness as the ability of an organization’s suppliers to implement

changes in response to the organization’s demand (Thatte et al., 2013). Thatte et al.

(2018) explained that an organization’s ability to quickly respond to customer demand

mainly depends on suppliers’ reaction time to effect volume changes.

The major factor in maintaining responsiveness in the SC is to acquire responsive

and flexible partners upstream and downstream in the SC (Christopher & Peck, 2004).

Thatte et al. (2018) explained that to obtain a competitive advantage, managers need to

rapidly meet changes in customers’ demands and needs regarding product volume and

mix, product differences, and the ability to provide a new product. However, to obtain a

competitive advantage, managers need to ensure the presence of responsiveness in all

stages of the SC, starting from raw material to delivery of the final product to customers.

Organizational managers seek to choose suppliers who can provide new products quickly

and create the required changes, which will result in a responsive SC. Managers need to

understand and acknowledge organizational conditions and environments, which impact

the organization’s ability to react to environmental change promptly. Additionally,

managers utilize SCM to direct SC partners to ensure SC responsiveness (Singh, 2015).

Managers with a responsive SC are better able to reduce the organizational lead time and

service reliability and ensure a quick and flexible response.

Supply Chain Vulnerability

Vulnerability in supply chains is among the most pressing concerns organizational

managers are currently facing (Kurniawan, Zailani, Iranmanesh, & Rajagopal, 2017).

Wagner and Neshat (2012) defined supply chain vulnerability as the susceptibility or

introduction to a disruptive incident in the supply chain. Managers need to attain

strategies and procedures to understand how unexpected disruptions in the supply chain

begin and expand (Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham, Scheibe, & Ambulka, 2018). In

addition, organizational managers and supply risk managers are required to recognize the

negative impact of supply chain disruption on the ﬂow of goods and services (Blackhurst

et al., 2018). According to Ambulkar, Blackhurst, and Grawe (2015), supply chains are

vulnerable to disruption, and managers seek to establish a level of resilience to gain the

desired level of recovery in the SC quickly. Risks, uncertainty, and disruption exist in all

activities required to obtain products and services and deliver them to final customers,

which may influence organization ability to provides customers’ demands (Kurniawan et

al., 2017).

Due to the complexity, unpredictable nature, and largeness of the SC,

organizational and supply chain risk managers need to obtain approaches to understand

and allocate unexpected disruptions in the supply chain effectively (Blackhurst et al.,

2018). Globalization, just in time method, outsourcing increase organization dependence

on outside resources were managers obtain less control over, which increase organization

vulnerability to disruption and affect SC partners (Neureuther & Kenyon, 2009).

Additionally, Global sourcing, lean management, and high level of dependence on

suppliers and customers consider the main drivers of SC vulnerability (Kurniawan et al.,

2017). Establishing a collaborative relationship with different suppliers assist managers

in avoiding sole sourcing as it increases the vulnerability by decreasing flexibility in the

SC (Neureuther & Kenyon, 2009). Kurniawan et al. (2017) stated that to lower

vulnerability consequences, managers need to develop and embedded vulnerability

mitigation strategies within supply chain development. Organizational managers need to

obtain an appropriate mitigation strategy to identify the source of risks, the drivers of

supply chain vulnerability, and measuring its results (Kurniawan et al., 2017).

The high level of uncertainty in supply and demand and the complexity and

interconnected nature of supply chains reduce managers ability to gain control over

vulnerabilities in SC (Mizgier, Jüttner, & Wagner, 2013). Blackhurst et al. (2018)

explained that understanding supply chain vulnerability is fundamental for managers to

reconﬁgure SC structure and relationships and relocate capacity and resources to lower

the risk and eﬀects of disruptions. Disruption of node failure is a specific type of

disruption, which occurs when a node in the SC stops to manufacture, distribute, or

deliver products (Blackhurst et al., 2018). Organizational managers need to recognize the

influence of risk and uncertainty on SC activities and develop appropriate mitigation

strategies to control them and sustain organization stability (Kurniawan et al., 2017). In

the occurrence of disruption, managers need to allocate which node in the SC is directly

affected, and all the possibilities for disruption spread (Blackhurst et al., 2018).

Blackhurst et al. (2018) stated that managers need to visualize the SC and analyze areas

of vulnerability.

Managers are required to obtain a deep understanding of SC structure,

connectivity and design to gain a better ability to recognizing the vulnerable locations in

the SC before a disruption occurs (Pettit, Croxton, & Fiksel, 2013). Understand supply

chain structures and points of vulnerability allow managers to make effective decisions

on the allocation of resources and SC restructuring (Blackhurst et al., 2018).

Additionally, it is important and essential to understand and be aware of the structure of

the supply chain and its vulnerability to disruptions (Mizgier et al., 2013). According to

Bode and Wagner (2015), SC design affects organizational supply chain vulnerability to

disruption. SC managers face indirect risk because the sources of the risk spread through

supply chain partners and managers are often unable to control it (Kurniawan et al.,

2017).

Transition

In this study, I intend to discuss the strategies organizational managers can utilize

to mitigate the negative results of supply chain disruption. In Section 1, I presented the

foundation and background of the study, problem statement, purpose statement, the

nature of the study, and the research and interview questions. Other important parts of

section 1 include the conceptual framework, operational definitions, the significance of

the study, and (e) review of the academic and professional literature. In Section 2, I will

state the research purpose, method, and design. I will explain the role of the researcher,

participants, population, and sampling procedures, and ethical research concerns. Section

2 also will cover data collection techniques and analysis method and reliability and

validity. At the end of Section 2, I will provide a summary of the main issues discussed in

this section. In Section 3, I will present and discuss the study findings, explain the

implications for social change and professional practice, and finally offer

recommendations for future research.

Section 2: The Project

Section 2 contains the purpose statement, the role of the researcher, participants,

research method and design, and the study population and sampling. Additionally, I

explain the data collection instruments and techniques, data organization techniques, and

analysis. Finally, I explain the research ethical, reliability, and validity, and end with a

transition and summary.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

some SC managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the negative results of SC

disruption. The target population was four SC managers in the Jordanian mining industry

located in Jordan, who successfully developed and implemented effective strategies to

mitigate the negative results of SC disruption. There may be contributions to positive

social change by mitigating negative results of SC disruptions, which may allow

organizations to maintain success, create more jobs, save resources, and support the

welfare of their employees, families, and communities.

Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, the researcher is the key instrument of the study and must

remain unbiased (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Dikko, 2016). Yin (2015) stated that quantitative

research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and validating qualitative data. My role as

the researcher was to design the case study, review the literature, establish an interview

framework, conduct the interviews, collect and analyze the responses, and verify and

report the findings. In this study, I was the primary data collection instrument; I sought

permission and approval before applying the research. To collect data from the

participants, I used semistructured interviews with individuals from two companies in the

mining industry in Jordan. I designed the study to match the guidelines of the Walden

University Institutional Review Board (IRB).

I interviewed organizational managers and gathered secondary data materials to

obtain primary information. McCusker and Gunaydin (2015) explained that researchers

use interview protocols to attain conformity and increase the reliability of the study

instrument. I used a semistructured interview protocol, following the same steps with

each participant, to gather quality data that aligns with the research question. I began each

interview with approximately 10

open-ended questions. I interviewed participants from

different experience levels and views to increase the validity of the study. I selected

participants with the same position and with an international focus. As a researcher, I

used the same interview framework to direct the participants to share their knowledge of

global SC and to avoid influencing their responses. Edwards (2017) stated that using the

same interview framework allows a researcher to avoid influencing the response of

participants. Tunarosa and Glynn (2017) stated that researchers use an interview protocol

to ensure the consistency of the research and to remain within the designed interview

framework. Additionally, researchers create an interview protocol for validity and

reliability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Researchers create the interview protocol for a

semistructured interview to ensure the interview questions align with the research

questions (Castillo-Montoya, 2016).

To ensure an ethical framework for my research, I followed the Belmont Report

(National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and

Behavioral Research, 1979). Researchers use the Belmont Report as a guideline to

prevent harm and increase positive results and fairness for all participants. Researchers

need to treat all research participants with the same ethical considerations regarding their

rights, requirements, benefits, and privileges (Brody, Migueles, & Wendler, 2015).

Researchers also need to respect participants’ requests and views and protect their

privacy (Dasgupta, 2015; Hull & Wilson, 2017). Additionally, researchers need to show

transparency and trust to increase the quality of the research, which benefits practitioners

and society (Hull & Wilson, 2017). I followed the Belmont Report rules by respecting the

participants’ views, using consent forms with all participants, and maintaining the

confidentiality of the participants during the research (Burdon & Harvey, 2016).

When researchers collect and interpret data, they need to ensure that their

personal experiences do not bias the process (Smith & Noble, 2014). Biases result from a

researcher’s experience with the subject under investigation (Berger, 2015). Recording

the collected information in a journal and frequently reviewing that information with a

peer will assist researchers in identifying and mitigating biases (Berger, 2015). Member

checking is another method I used to identify possible bias in the interpretation and

results (Madill & Sullivan, 2017). I do not possess any current or past personal or

professional experience or relationships with the target population. I have never worked

in global SC. However, the increasing challenges I experienced in the industry guided me

to explore this study. Identifying personal experience and opinions helps a researcher

recognize personal bias (Noble & Smith, 2015).

Participants

For this study, I planned to choose participants using the purposive sampling

approach. Researchers use purposive sampling to ensure that they choose participants

with the most appropriate information and knowledge (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill,

2015). The measure of suitability for my study was managers who have been using

successful strategies to mitigate the negative results of SC disruption. I started by

obtaining permission from Walden University IRB and meeting ethical requirements. The

IRB approval number is 04-04-19-0639477. After obtaining approval from IRB, I

contacted the participants’ organizational managers through e-mail to arrange

appointments to gain access to the eligible participants (Dasgupta, 2015). The potential

participants needed to be SC managers with at least 2 years’ experience and full-time

employment. All potential participants received information regarding the study’s

benefits, risks, and confidentiality via a consent form.

To provide and achieve successful qualitative research, researchers need to

establish a relationship with participants (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Researchers

develop a relationship with participants to encourage them to participate and complete the

study (Saunders et al., 2015). As part of the interview protocol, researchers need to

develop an appropriate environment for the interview, including time and location

(Skouloudis et al., 2017). Gagnon, Jacob, and McCabe (2015) stated that interview time

and location are essential to a successful interview. In addition, researchers need to

provide a flexible interview environment to allow participants to freely express their

knowledge and experience (Burdon & Harvey, 2016). Participants should know that they

have the right to withdraw from the study at any time (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015). I

secured the gathered data from the interviews in a personal safe and will retain it for 5

years, and then it will be shredded.

Research Method and Design

Research Method

For the study, I used the qualitative research methodology. The qualitative design

provides an in-depth analysis of the descriptive questions (Gerring, 2017). Researchers

use the qualitative methodology to explain and explore the meaning of social and human

behavior and decisions (Bailey, 2014). Therefore, qualitative methodology was the most

appropriate design for the study. The quantitative approach was not appropriate for the

study because I was not seeking to test a hypothesis or examine variables. Researchers

use the quantitative approach to identify, describe, and investigate the relationship

between variables (Yin, 2014). In this study, I did not use the quantitative approach

because I was not studying relationships between variables. A mixed methodology is

used to combine quantitative and qualitative methodology when neither methodology is

sufficient alone (Turner et al., 2017). Qualitative methodology alone was most desirable

for this study.

Qualitative researchers use this method to observe and understand an experience

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Qualitative research merges observation, documentation, and

interviews to gather data (Midgley & Wilby, 2015). Additionally, the qualitative method

allows participants to describe their understanding of their experience in their own words

(Midgley & Wilby, 2015). The qualitative research method is more appropriate for

focusing on human and organizational activities and reflects the individuality of the

human experience (Mertens & Hesse-Biber, 2015). Tomos et al. (2015) stated that the

qualitative method is an efficient methodology for studying a business problem based on

human experiences and observing people in their natural locations (Lach, 2014).

Qualitative research provides a better understanding of problems because of its deeper

level of discovery and understanding (Bratucu & Bratucu, 2015).

Research Design

For this study, I reviewed the following qualitative research designs: (a) case

study, (b) phenomenology, (c) ethnography, and (d) narrative design. A multiple case

study is the best design for the study, given the intricate complexity of the subject under

investigation and the use of few participants. Researchers use a multiple case study to

gain an in-depth understanding of a problem involving complex subjects and few

participants (Park & Park, 2016; Yin, 2014). A phenomenological design was not suitable

for the study because the basis of this study was not individual viewpoints. Researchers

use the phenomenological design when the research involves studying members for their

existing human experience in a major life event (Bentahar & Cameron, 2015). The

ethnographic design was also not suitable for the study because researchers use the

ethnographic design to focus on the cultures of specific groups, how people within groups

interact with each other, and how culture affects the groups’ member (Kruth, 2015). The

narrative study design was not suitable for the study because this study was not

concentrating on the life experiences of individuals over time or analyzing their

experience (Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2016).

The multiple case study is an in-depth investigation of experience or a topic

within its natural environment without any restrictions (Cacheche, Santos, Santos, &

Akabane, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Runfola et al., 2017). Researchers use multiple

case studies to expand their understanding of a subject and capture its individuality

(Hyett et al., 2014). Mertens & Hesse-Biber (2015) stated that the case study design is the

most appropriate design in business research. Case study research provides in-depth, a

general explanation of the phenomenon in its real location (Abro, Khurshid, & Aamir,

2015). Because of this, a multiple case study is the most appropriate design for my study.

In qualitative research, researchers focus on a single topic and ask the study

participants the same questions in all interviews (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Hennink, Kaiser,

& Marconi, 2017; Saxena, 2017). To achieve data saturation, a researcher will continue

asking questions and obtaining information until no new ideas or information appear

(Gladwell, Badlan, Cramp, & Palmer, 2015). Member checking is a method that

researchers use to ensure the consistency of the study information through the

confirmation of the data by the participants (Anderson, 2017; Birt, Scott, Cavers,

Campbell, & Walter, 2016; Varpio, Ajjawi, Monrouxe, O’Brien & Rees, 2017). I will use

member checking by allowing the participants to confirm my interpretation and

understanding of their interview responses. Researchers confirm the interpreted

information to obtain accurate information to enhance the reliability and credibility of the

study (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Muir, 2014).

Population and Sampling

The target population is SC managers in the Jordanian mining industry. I will

purposively choose SC managers based on their experience and knowledge of the global

SC and those who have successfully implemented strategies to mitigate the effect of SC

disruption. Researchers are required to decide the appropriate number of participants, the

specific requirements for those participants, and the proper interview protocol for a study

(Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). McCusker and Gunaydin (2015) explained that the

target of sampling is to identify the appropriate sample that matches the research design.

Researchers use purposeful sampling to identify the most appropriate participants who

have the required experience and knowledge to answer all the interview questions about

the subject under examination (Boddy, 2016; Carman, Clark, Wolf, & Moon, 2015). In

purposive sampling, researchers select specific participants who match specific criteria to

achieve and deliver the goal of the research (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Gligor, Holcomb,

and Stank (2013) defined purposive sampling as a nonprobability sampling method that

researchers use to select individuals who can provide useful insights regarding the subject

investigated in a study. Participants in a purposive sample provide more data about the

subject under investigation (Tunarosa & Glynn, 2017). A purposive sampling includes

participants with unique and independence experiences and knowledge. Participants from

the purposive sample add more value and richness to the study (Suen, Huang, & Lee,

2014). Suen et al. (2014) considered purposive sampling an appropriate process for a

qualitative case study because the researchers can obtain the best information about a

certain topic from participants (Elo et al., 2014). Researchers with purposive sampling

need to use their judgment to select the sample (Elo et al., 2014).

Researchers need to address the number of participants in order to obtain all the

required information; however, it needs to be limited to allow the researcher to perform a

detailed coding process in a limited time (Gheondea-Eladi, 2014; van Rijnsoever, 2017).

Malterud, Siersma, and Guassora (2016) stated that researchers need to consider the

purpose of the study as the main driver to determine the sample size. According to Gibbs,

Shafer, and Dufur (2015), researchers need to be practical when deciding the sample size;

a suitable sample considers a central issue and increases the credibility of the study

analysis and reporting. Yin (2014) stated that a sample size of three participants might be

acceptable to reach data saturation. Researchers in qualitative research attempt to gather a

satisfactory amount of information to understand the research subject (Gentles, Charles,

Ploeg, & McKibbon, 2015).

Data saturation is a method that researchers use to determine a suitable sample

size for the research (van Rijnsoever, 2017). Researchers reach data saturation when they

cannot obtain any new information from interviews, member checking, and document

reviews (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Hennink et al., 2017; van Rijnsoever, 2017). Data

saturation is an instrument researcher employ to ensure the sufficiency and quality of the

collected information (Marshall et al., 2013). Researchers consider saturation as an

essential element in qualitative research because it ensures a full representation of A

study under investigation (Gergen, Josselson, & Freeman, 2015).

To confirm data saturation in the research, I intend to use member checking after

conducting my preliminary analysis and interpretation of the interviews. Member

checking allows participants to confirm the accuracy of my interpretation of their

responses in follow up interviews (Chih-Feng, Ching-Jung, Walters, & Ching-Yieh,

2016; Harvey, 2015; Simpson & Quigley, 2016). During the first interview, researchers

obtained in-depth information. The second interview is a follow-up, and the third

interview offers a chance for member checking (Abro et al., 2015). When conducting the

interview, researchers need to ensure the privacy of the participants and provide a secure

location that is also convenient (Yin, 2014). Interview location and space are essential

features of the interviewing process (Gagnon et al., 2015; Moore, 2015; Taylor et al.,

2015).

Ethical Research

I conducted this study after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review

Board and follow Walden University’s IRB guidelines. The standards for IRB approval

include reducing risks to participants, the validation of risk versus benefit,

documentation, voluntary consent of participants and participant confidentiality and an

ethical subject (Blackwood et al., 2015). In any research, the safety and confidentiality of

the participants is an essential element (Ellis, 2016). The roles and responsibilities of a

researcher are to guard the secrecy of the participants by assigning them numbers or

different names; this process encouraged them to participate in the study (Edwards,

2017). The university research ethics committees are responsible for the supervision and

review of research proposals concerning human participants (Gallagher, Mcdonald, &

Mccormack, 2014). After obtaining the IRB approval, I asked the participants for their e-

mail addresses. Then I sent them an electronic invitation to participate in the study. The

e-mail contained a description of the purpose of the research and its benefits (Gibbs et al.,

2015). In addition, the email provided extra information on how to maintain the

participants’ and their employer’s privacy. I sent the participants informed consent,

which ensures both the protection of the participant and the transparency of the study

(Yin, 2014). I informed the participants that their participation is voluntary, and I did not

provided any compensation. I also notified the participants that they can withdraw from

the study at any time. After obtaining the acceptance of my proposal, I scheduled a face-

to-face interview with the participants. Participants are required to sign and return an

informed consent form to ensure they agree to participate in the study voluntarily and that

their identities will remain confidential and private (Marshall & Rossman, 2016;

Dasgupta, 2015; Midgley & Wilby, 56 2015). Researchers need to ensure that they will

secure the identity and privacy of the participant (Hiriscau, Stingelin-giles, Stadler,

Schmeck, & Reiter-theil, 2014). I notified the participants that I saved all written

information in a safe in a secure place for 5 years, and after 5 years, I will destroy all the

information. The American Psychological Association guidelines and the law highlight

the importance of maintaining confidentiality (Rosales, 2014). Researchers are not

allowed to publish the name or any other identifying descriptions of the participants to

maintain confidentiality (Adinoff, Conley, Taylor, & Chezem, 2013).

Data Collection Instruments

In a qualitative study, the researcher is the primary data collection tool

(O’Sullivan, 2015; Cypress, 2017). For the study, I will be the primary data collection

tool. Researchers gathered qualitative information by using open-ended questions and

combining it with secondary information (Baillie, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015;

Morse, 2015). I collected information by conducting semi-structured interviews and

reviewing organizational materials to obtain general data about the subject. I conducted

face-to-face semistructured interviews to gather the research information. I used the same

open-ended questions to guarantee the consistency of all interviews. During the study,

researchers need to observe their personal biases and win participants’ trust during the

research process (O’Sullivan, 2015).

Researchers use an interview protocol to improve the trustworthiness of their

studies (Amankwaa, 2016; Castillo-Montoya, 2016), by ensuring the alignment between

research questions and interview questions and process (Castillo-Montoya, 2016).

Interview protocols cover the study information, details for information collection, and

the interview process (Yin, 2014). Researchers use interview protocols to ensure the

transparency, consistency, and reliability of the interview process (Amankwaa, 2016;

Edwards, 2017). Additionally, the researcher needs to have a clear understanding of the

purpose of the study and stay aligned during the interview and data collection stage (Abro

et al., 2015; Ellis, 2016).

I conducted an individual, face-to-face semistructured interviews to ensure the

personal privacy of the participants and to maintain the personal element of the research

(O’Sullivan, 2015). In the semistructured interviews, I asked open-ended questions to

allow participants to explain and share their knowledge, the point of view, and experience

in their own words. Participants needed to feel important and appreciated during the

study (Saunders et al., 2015). Researchers consider semistructured interviews to be the

most effective technique to obtain a richer understanding of the participant’s experiences

and effectively address the research question (Midgley & Wilby, 2015).

Researchers use member checking to ensure the credibility and validity of the

collected data; many other researchers utilize member checking in their research for the

same reason (Pushnoi, 2015; Hadi & Closs, 2016). Member checking provides an

opportunity for the study participants to re-evaluate the interpretation of their data to

ensure accurate and effective interpretation (Dasgupta, 2015; Burdon & Harvey, 2016).

Triangulation is another process that researchers deploy to validate the study findings

through multiple sources of information, entities, theories, or to use a different method

for data collection (Dasgupta, 2015). For my study, I used a different source of data

triangulation, including observation and semistructured interviews, to increase the study

reliability and accuracy of the collected data.

The member checking process starts after the researcher finishes the interviews,

the interpretation and summarizing of the collected data (Caretta, 2016; Gledhill &

Harwood, 2014; Rieck, 2014; Wiens, Kyngäs, & Pölkki, 2016). Researchers followed up

with participants to perform member checking to ensure data saturation and accuracy

(Chih-Feng et al., 2016; Harvey, 2015; Simpson & Quigley, 2016). In my study, I used a

digital voice recorder with all participants throughout the interviews to confirm the

trustworthiness of the study and coding. Researchers use digital recordings in interviews

to obtain a method of auditing and validity (Nordstrom, 2015). For the member checking,

I conducted a follow up interviews with the study participants.

Data Collection Technique

In this study, I was the main data collection instrument. I collected information

through in-depth and open-ended questions in semistructured interviews. I reviewed

organizations documents. The following research question guided the interview

questions: What strategies do managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the

negative results of SC disruptions? In qualitative research, the researcher decides the data

collection techniques that best align with the theoretical framework and the purpose of

the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Data collection involves obtaining permission to

conduct the research, establishing a strategy for sampling, identify an appropriate method

for recording information, data storage, and the expectation of ethical conduct (McCusker

& Gunaydin, 2015). Qualitative researchers must choose the most appropriate data

collection techniques that will best describe the subject under investigation (Hammer &

Berland, 2014).

In a qualitative study, researchers mainly perform face to face interviews, audio

recordings, and recording the collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Morgan, Pullon,

Macdonald, McKinlay, & Gray, 2017; Setia, 2017). Researchers conduct interviews

because they offer more flexibility to direct and rephrase the interview questions for extra

information when something different or new appears during the interview process

(Bryman & Bell, 2015; Tunarosa & Glynn, 2017). Marshall and Rossman (2016)

explained that interview questions improve the study of human issues and behaviors.

Additionally, researchers use interview questions as guidelines and as references

(Saunders et al., 2015). Before conducting an interview, researchers need to make sure

that the study participants understand the purposes of the study and interview (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2015). Researchers need to ensure the participants understand that they are

volunteering without any restriction and can withdraw anytime they want (Yin, 2015).

Additionally, researchers must acknowledge the participants of the audio recording and

obtain their approval (Vincent & Blandford, 2017).

Ibrahim and Edgley (2015) stated that open-ended questions are appropriate for

qualitative interviews because they explore participants’ experiences, standards, and

knowledge, and gathered rich, descriptive data (Yin, 2015). Researchers need to select

proper participants who have an adequate amount of information to enhance the richness

of the study (Onggo & Hill, 2014). During the interview, researchers need to select

exploratory questions where an additional explanation may add richness to the

information and study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Researchers need to ask the interview

questions within an appropriate time frame, or the participant may feel pressured

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Face-to-face and semistructured interviews boost qualitative

research’s validity and trustworthiness (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). Semistructured, face

to face interviews allow researchers to achieve an in-depth understanding of a topic and

provide flexibility with participants to personally exchange information in a secure place

(Dong et al., 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).

Researchers depend on member checking to enhance the credibility of the

interview data (Amankwaa, 2016; Connelly, 2016). Researchers utilize member checking

to increase the reliability and validity of the collected data (Anderson, 2017; Birt et al.,

2016; Malagon-Maldonado, 2014). After performing the interview, researchers give the

study participants an interpreted summary of the interview transcripts to review and send

back to the researchers, which summarize the member checking (Birt et al., 2016;

Kornbluh, 2015; Madill & Sullivan, 2017). For this study and after obtaining the IRB

approval, I contacted the study participants, explain the purpose of the study, ensure that

they understand their rights and the requirements, then let them sign the informed consent

form. After that, I started the questioning process. I informed the study participants that I

recorded the interview and that I took notes.

Data Organization Technique

In qualitative research, researchers use different devices to record interviews

(Cypress, 2017; Nordstrom, 2015; Scheel-Sailer, Post, Michel, Weidmann-Hügle, &

Baumann Hölzle, 2017). Qualitative study information includes audio, transcripts, notes,

video, or any documents gathered during the study (Baškarad, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,

2015; Yin, 2015). Researchers use computer-aided qualitative data analysis software

(CAQDAS) to help organize the unstructured qualitative data (Chowdhury, 2015;

Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Yin, 2014). Researchers enhance the research trustworthiness

when they are transparent during the research process (Amankwaa, 2016; Connelly,

2016; Cypress, 2017).

In the study, I used NVivo 11 to code the interview transcripts. Ferreira, Moreno,

Brandao, and Cerqueira (2016) explained that NVivo and Atlas.ti accomplish the same

purpose of qualitative data analysis. Researchers recommended NVivo and Atlas.ti for

qualitative analysis (Kaefer, Roper, and Sinha, 2015). NVivo stores and organizes the

collected data for easy referencing (Mertens, & HesseBiber, 2015). I also used a voice

recorder during the interview. When using the voice recorder, I created one electronic file

for each recording, which represents one interview. I provided different names for each

participant to ensure privacy, confidentiality, and to track the data. I saved the collected

data in printed and written forms in a secure place for five years. I used my personal

computer to save all collected data, protected by a password.

Data Analysis

For this study, I used computer software NVivo to create a coding system and

other documentary analyses. Researchers perform data analysis by identifying and

assessing the importance of all the collected information (Yin, 2014). The data analysis

process includes searching, coding, organizing, and modeling the data interpretation to

evaluate its significance (Sinkovics, Penz, & Ghauri, 2008; Xu & Storr, 2012).

Researchers use computer software as a tool to assist them in the analysis process.

However, researchers need to sustain their creativity, sociological assessments, and

common sense during the interpretation process (Klüber, 2014). Researchers use NVivo

software to enhance the data analysis process through data management, data entry,

visual forms, and reporting (Bazeley & Jackson, 2015).

For this multiple case study, I collected data from open-ended questions in a

semistructured interview besides organizational documents, member checking, and

research notes. I used the triangulation method as a part of data analysis. McCusker and

Gunaydin (2015) defined triangulation as the process of utilizing two known topics to

discover an unknown third point. In qualitative research, researchers use the

methodological triangulation procedure to assess case study data (Yin, 2014).

Researchers validate the results of the data collection process from multiple data sources

involving interview responses, personal notes, member checking, and organizational

materials, which increase the validity of the study (Dasgupta, 2015; Kern, 2016).

Researchers use methodological triangulation in qualitative multiple case studies

because it allows the researcher to verify the study data from a different source (Edwards,

2017). Researchers use methodological triangulation to obtain a complete picture of the

topic than use a single type of data (Gibbs et al., 2015). For the methodological

triangulation, I will use within-method. Within-method uses two or more data collection

techniques for the same study. Researchers can enhance the study results by triangulation

obtained from the confirmation of the results using different sources (Abro et al., 2015;

Mertens & Hesse-Biber, 2015).

Yin (2015) suggested the five-phase cycle: (1) compiling, (2) disassembling, (3)

reassembling, (4) interpreting, and (5) concluding data. For this study, I followed Yin’s

suggestions to analyze the study data. Compiling is the process of organizing primary

data in a meaningful way and is the first step in data analysis (Essary, 2014). In the

disassembling step, I grouped and labeled the words and phrases into themes to find

meaning before reassembling it (Bengtsson, 2016). I used Nvivo software to code and

produce an emerging theme from the coding process (Essary, 2014). Reassembling is the

third phase, which includes placing the data together in related coding categories

(Bengtsson, 2016). Yin (2014) stated that researchers need to group the data in order of

significance to answer the research question. Researchers attain data saturation once there

are no new themes obtained from the data (Hennink et al., 2017). I continued

reassembling the data until I reach data saturation. The fourth step is interpreting. After I

reassemble the data into themes, I offered a detailed interpretation of the differences and

similarities of patterns that will appear. Yin (2015) explained that the interpreting step is

the basis of the qualitative study. I used Nvivo software to assist in the interpretation of

the data. I used the member checking technique to ensure interpretation accuracy. The

final step is concluding data. Researchers in the conclusion step can communicate and

display their findings and draw conclusions (Yin, 2014).

In the study, I used NVivo software to code the interview transcripts. I used

NVivo to arrange, analyze, and attain themes of the collected data. Mertens and Hesse-

Biber (2015) stated that researchers have successfully used NVivo to identify the

relations in the data and obtain new understandings, address mutual patterns by

examining consistencies, convergences, and differences in data. Woods et al. (2016)

stated that researchers utilize NVivo for its ability to evaluate nodes within a complex

matrix. Establishing a database of the study data is one of the essential aspects of the

study (Yin, 2015). Additionally, Bryman and Bell (2015) stated that there is a need to use

an interview procedure to code each interview separately and identify a common coding

framework for all the data. Researchers combine the study data to achieve a better

understanding of the topic, which is more appropriate than using each source separately

(Abro et al., 2015).

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity reflect the accuracy and correctness of the research

(Gheondea-Eladi, 2014). Researchers need to ensure that the qualitative research process

is consistently reliable and valid (Cypress, 2017; Leung, 2015; Noble & Smith, 2015).

Reliability means that data and processes within the study are dependable (Leung, 2015).

Validity relates to the suitability of the researcher’s selections, including methodology,

instruments, processes, and data (Leung, 2015). Researchers use reliability, integrity,

transferability, and confirmability to achieve the trustworthiness of a qualitative study

(Cope, 2014; Hadi & Closs, 2016; Yin, 2014).

Reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency of individual researchers (Ellis, 2016).

Reliability of research includes an in-depth explanation of the data collection procedures,

analysis, and interpretation (Sotiriadou et al., 2014). Dasgupta (2015) and Grossoehme

(2014) stated that to enhance reliability, researchers need to record the study data

accurately. Researchers need to use the same procedures in all participant interviews

without changing any processes (Tunarosa & Glynn, 2017). Using more than one sources

to collect data is a standard process in qualitative research. Methodological triangulation

can enhance the reliability of the collected data (Eriksson, 2013; Nilsson, Castro, Rivas,

& Arts, 2015). Data triangulation involves using various sources of information to

increase the strength of the study (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015). Researchers collect

data from different participants because each participant provides different perceptions

and has had different experiences (Gibbs et al., 2015). Member checking and data

saturation is another important method to ensure the reliability of THIS study. Data

saturation is essential for research quality and improves the reliability of the study (Fusch

& Ness, 2015). Furthermore, using software programs helps the investigative process of

coding and analyzing the data and make it more accessible to researchers. Therefore, it

increases the study credibility, replicability, and importance (Sinkovics et al., 2008).

Validity

Validity indicates that the study is credible, which refers to the realistic and

convincing nature of the researching process (Burdon & Harvey, 2016). To ensure

research credibility, researchers need to deploy member checking to allows participants

to correct mistakes in interview interpretations (Dasgupta, 2015). Member checks provide

a chance for the participant to deliver additional information or clarify their responses

(Bryman & Bell, 2015). Researchers use dependability, credibility, transferability, and

confirmability to report the trustworthiness of qualitative research (Cope, 2014; Hadi &

Closs, 2016; Yin, 2014). Cypress (2017) explained that researchers deliver dependability

via the clarity of research procedures, analysis, and conclusions. Researchers identify the

potential bias and limitations of the study to increase the dependability of the study

(Cypress, 2017). Additionally, researchers provide clear and visible procedures in the

research methods to enhance the study dependability (Cypress, 2017; Hadi & Closs,

2015; Noble & Smith, 2015). Researchers consider data saturation as another

identification of the validity of the study (Anderson, 2017; Constantinou, Georgiou,

Perdikogianni, 2017; Noble & Smith, 2015).

Qualitative researchers focus on ensuring credibility in their research because bias

can affect researchers’ interpretations (Cypress, 2017; Leung, 2015). Researchers use

methodological triangulation, member checking, and continued observation to ensure the

study’s credibility (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Hadi & Closs, 2016). Additionally, confirmation

is another method to ensure reliability by comparing and opposing the data collected

from different sources (Dasgupta, 2015). Researchers use methodological triangulation to

enhance data confirmability (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2015), and member checking to

ensure the accurate interpretation of participant responses (Amankwass, 2016; Connelly,

2016; Hadi & Closs, 2016). Qualitative researchers can increase the transferability of the

findings by having a transparent research process, following the study protocols, and

ensure data saturation (Cypress, 2017; Goldberg & Allen, 2015; Nickasch et al., 2016).

The ability to transfer the study into a different framework allows for its evaluation

(Gibbs et al., 2015). Transferability of the research can assist other researchers who use a

similar framework to obtain the same results in the future (Dasgupta, 2015).

Transition and Summary

In Section 2 of the study, I explained the purpose statement, the role of the

researcher, and the study participants. Next, I started the research method and design,

population, sampling, ethical research, data collection instruments, data collection

technique, data organization techniques, and data analysis. I did not start gathering data

until I obtained IRB approval. After receiving IRB approval, I followed an interview

protocol to collect data through interviews and the evaluation of organizations

documents. I concluded Section 2 by explaining how I ensured the study reliability and

validity.

Section 3 will summarize the data analysis process, the interpretation of the

interviews and documents review data and explain how the conceptual framework is

correlated to the findings. In Section 3, I will present the study’s findings, deliver an

application to professional practice, state the implication for social change, study

recommendations, recommendations for further research, study reflections, and my

conclusion.

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore the strategies

SC managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the negative results of SC disruption.

The conceptual framework and the underlying theory for this qualitative multiple case

study was RDT. The data came from manager interviews and company documentation.

Using purposeful sampling and semistructured interviews, I collected data from four SC

managers from a global manufacturing company located in Jordan. Each study participant

provided answers to 10 interview questions, along with documentation related to the

study topic. The main question of this study was: What strategies do managers in the

mining industry use to mitigate the negative results of SC disruptions? The findings

showed the methods and strategies the organizational managers used to mitigate the

negative result of SC disruption successfully.

All four managers interviewed had global SC experience of at least 3 years. I

selected the participants based on their managerial status and work experience and the

location of the businesses. One of the central responsibilities of managers is to compete

effectively by overcoming the many challenges of the global environment (Ibrahim,

Zailani, & Tan, 2015). Complexity in the global SC causes more difficulties for

organizational managers to organize their supply chains and adjust to changes in the

markets (Hearnshaw & Wilson, 2013). I analyzed the data using NVivo. Researchers use

NVivo to organize, analyze, and code different data types from different sources to

categorize data in themes (Castleberry, 2014). Using the software and my notes, I was

able to identify two main themes: (a) developing relationships and collaboration, and (b)

sourcing strategy. To ensure the accuracy of my transcript, I conducted follow-up

member checking with participants. I used triangulation as a part of data analysis.

Researchers use methodological triangulation to obtain a more complete picture of the

topic than using a single type of data resources (Gibbs et al., 2015).

Presentation of the Findings

In this qualitative multiple case study, I conducted face-to-face, semistructured

interviews with four organizational managers to answer the research question: What

strategies do managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the negative results of SC in

disruptions? Organizational managers chose the interview location, interviews did not

exceed 50 minutes, and member-checking discussions did not last more than 20 minutes.

I used a purposive sampling approach to collect information from four organizational

managers regarding their experiences with strategies used to mitigate the negative results

of SC disruptions. After conducting each interview, I transcribed the data to a transcript

and conducted a follow-up interview to validate the information through member

checking until I reached data saturation. After conducting member checking and reaching

data saturation, I started analyzing data and developing themes, which related to the

research question and the conceptual framework.

The findings from organizational manager interviews revealed two themes. The

first theme that emerged was collaborations and building relationships between

organizations and vendors and suppliers. Retaining a long-term secure relationship is

essential to the success of an organization because it produces effective communication,

improved information sharing and trust, decreased cost and cycle time, and enhanced

customer satisfaction (Yang, 2013). Organizational managers need to create business

relationships with vendors and suppliers while ensuring customer satisfaction. The

second theme of the data was the strategies organizational managers use in the

outsourcing process, supply process, and demand process and the strategic sourcing

process to identify SC disruption. Esfahbodi et al. (2016) stated that during a disruption,

organizational managers need to continuously use strategies to help with communicating

and maintaining relationships with vendors and suppliers.

Theme 1: Developing Relationships and Collaboration

Developing relationships and maintaining collaboration among SC members may

decrease SC disruptions based on responses to Question 5. The four participants

explained that establishing relationships with suppliers and vendors is beneficial in

maintaining productivity and increasing profits during a SC disruption. Four

organizational managers stated that maintaining long-term relationships with multiple

suppliers and vendors may provide a secure source of organizational resources. Trust was

another essential aspect between suppliers and vendors and the organization.

Managers 1 and 2 focused on the idea of having mutual benefits between

suppliers, vendors, and organization. The study participants explained that the mutual

benefits between supplier and organization result from long-term contracts that maintain

suppliers’ resources from equipment and human resources for a long time. Additionally,

both managers explained that building relationships and signing long-term contracts with

vendors and suppliers protect the company from SC disruption and lessen their effect.

Managers are required to obtain solutions for a recovery process, which can decrease the

influence of a SC disruption (Carbonara & Pellegrino, 2018). Datta (2017) suggested that

SC managers can manage inventory effectively and attain competitive advantage by

using strategies that include information sharing and collaboration.

Subtheme 1: Partnership and alliances. One of the main strategies Manager 1

explained was including one of the major customers as a partner in the organization,

which secured more than 50% of the organization production. According to Belkadi,

Messaadia, Bernard, and Baudry (2017), organizational managers need to develop

partnerships within the SC to combine their core competencies and resources to deal with

market competitiveness and diversity. Managers may use a collaborative SC to suggest

innovative solutions for a speciﬁc market, with the opportunity to transfer these solutions

to another market with small adjustments (Belkadi et al., 2017). Study participants

explained that the role of suppliers and vendors is crucial for an organization’s success.

Browne, Sackett, and Wortmann (1995) stated that organizational managers need to

create collaborative value chains as a part of the organizational structure to encounter the

needs of the market. According to the four managers, obtaining a high level of

collaboration within the SC increases the level of flexibility in the communication

between partners, which improves collaboration between partners to increase productivity

and profit and decrease the impact of disruption.

Study participants stated that in supply chains, establishing mutually beneficial

relationships results in long-term relationships. According to the study participants,

forming long-term relationships within a SC is advantageous. Belkadi et al. (2017)

explained that obtaining a group of implicit or contractual agreements among partners

assists managers in avoiding conﬂicts of interest at the managerial level and conﬂicts

between resources and processes at the operational level. Manager A2 and A4 explained

that obtaining contracts and agreements between organization and suppliers and

customers increase the level of trust between partners, which increases productivity and

profit. Establishing contracts and agreements can provide flexibility for organization

processes when they encounter changes and disruption in the economic environment and

can allow all partners to collaborate effectively (Belkadi et al., 2017). Maintaining a long-

term secure relationship is critical to the success of an organization while facilitating

effective communication, improved information sharing and trust, decreased cost and

cycle time, and enhanced customer satisfaction (Yang, 2013). Alliance in a collaborative

system is an effective method of developing a long-term relationship between buyer and

supplier (Yang, 2013). Collaborative alliances in a SC influence partners within the SC

and helps collaborate the information and product flow through buyer and supplier

interactions (Caridi, Cigolini, & DeMarco, 2005; Green & Inman, 2005).

Subtheme 2: Trust. One of the subthemes that emerge from collecting data was

trust. Four study participants focus on the concept of trust within SC partners.

Participants A2, A3, and A4 explained that trust is the foundation of organizations

relationship among SC partners, which facilitate their work and increase their

productivity and maintain a level of security to the organization. Brinkhoff, Özer, and

Sargut (2015) stated that organizational managers need to create trust between SC

partners. Obtaining trust among SC partners allow each partner to share their information

and resources without losing control of their critical resources (Brinkhoff, Özer, &

Sargut, 2015). All study participants considered trust as an essential key to the

development of long term relationships among SC partners. Additionally, four

organizational managers indicated that obtaining long term relationships can enhance

organizational performance.

According to manager A1 and A3, trust influences the level of commitment and

encourages collaboration between SC partners. Chen et al. (2014) highlight the

significance of trust and commitment to an organization through collaboration within the

supply chain. Belkadi et al. (2017) explained collaboration as the ability to work together

to accomplish mutual goals through sharing resources, skills, and information. Trust

reflects the level of confidence in a partner’s reliability and integrity of work

(Rindfleisch, 2000). Four study participants explained that obtaining a good relationship

with supply chain partners may result in building trust among partners and increase the

level of reliability, which lessens the influence of supply chain disruption. Trust improves

collaboration between partners (Manu, Ankrah, Chinyio, & Proverbs, 2015) and increases

operational performance (Shi & Liao, 2015) and knowledge sharing (Choi, Kang, & Lee,

2008), which assist managers in obtaining a competitive advantage in a changing

business environment (Myers & Cheung, 2008). Obtaining a relationship built on trust

may reduce the uncertainty surrounding the partner’s actions (Belkadi et al., 2017).

Four organizational managers in the study stated that developing relationships

with supply chain partners is a critical key to organizational success. Sampson and

Money (2015) stated that managers need to build relationships continuously between

their organization and suppliers, which may increase customer satisfaction. Creating

effective long relationships with suppliers may lead to competitive advantage for

organizations (Wiengarten, Humphreys, Gimenez, & Mclvor, 2016). Managers A1, A2,

and A4 explained that building a secure relationship with suppliers and customers has

increased loyalty and decreased mitigation resulting from supply chain disruption.

Organizational managers in the mining industry have reduced mitigation and improved

relationships with suppliers and customers. The RDT principle applied within Theme 1

was correlated to managers building relationships when reacting to a supply chain

disruption.

Developing long-term relationships built on trust have enabled supply chain

partners to work more effectively to maintain productively during supply chain

disruptions. Carbonara and Pellegrino (2018) explained that managers need to develop

strategies before disruptions occur. Obtaining quality relationships with consumers have

provided positive results (Kache & Seuring, 2017; Rao et al., 2017) and decreased the

negative influence of supply chain disruption. Managers A2 and A3 explained that one

cause of disruption could be a result of delays in delivery days and delays in vendors

responsiveness. Supply chain disruption must be anticipated and managed with a supply

chain (Zhen, Li, Cai, & Shi, 2016). Additionally, obtaining long term, quality

relationships can restore production processes more effectively (Fernandes, Sampaio,

Sameiro, & Truong, 2017; Schmitt, Kumar, Stecke, Glover, Ehlen, 2017). Four

organizational managers who participated in this study have successfully developed

collaborative relationships within their supply chains. A key to adding value to supply

chain effectiveness can be gained through more effective communication and information

sharing and result in more collaborative relationships.

Theme 2: Strategy

Four study participants stated that developing proactive planning strategies to

identify supply chain disruption before an occurrence is very important. According to

manager three and four, design recovery plans may help to minimize negative supply

chain effects. Manager A3 explained that obtaining alternative suppliers was a critical

key to the success of the organization and its survival. Manager A3 stated that pre-

planning supply chain disruption is essential to gaining quick and effective responses

from within the organization and the employees. According to manager A3, deploying

preplanning strategies provides a clearer understanding of each partner during a supply

chain disruption. Manager A3 explained by obtaining a clear understanding among

supply chain partners during a disruption allows the organizational managers to lessen the

risk of supply chain disruption. Hill, Jones, and Schilling (2014) stated that obtaining a

proactive plan for supply chain disruptions should focus on the readiness of

organizational managers to deal effectively with a crisis. Wisner, Tan, and Leong (2016)

stated that obtaining qualified, trained, and empowered employees are more effective

when dealing with supply chain disruption. In addition, manager A3 stated that

establishing well-trained supplier and vendor networks does support a recovery system

for the organization in case of any supply chain disruption. Snyder et al. (2016) and

Wisner et al. (2016) explained that obtaining a proactive plan as a management method

with backup plans can enhance supply chain disruption management. According to

McNeil, Frey, and Embrechts (2015) and Naidu and Patel (2013), managers who develop

a plan for potential disruptions obtain a better understanding of supply chain management

and how to mitigate disruption risk. Managers A3 and A4 explained that managing

product demand and having different suppliers can help to reduce supply chain

disruptions. Chong, Ch’ng, Liu, and Li (2017) explained that organizational managers

could gain a competitive advantage over its competitors by obtaining an effective supply

chain, which can be accomplished by a better understanding of the demands of products.

Organizational managers can overcome market challenges by obtaining a better

understanding and forecasting of customer demands (Chong et al., 2017). Organizational

managers can utilize information technology (IT) and Data Sciences to understand and

calculate customer demands more accurately using quantitative approaches (Chong et al.,

2017). Suominen (2014) explained that the use of information technology could assist

managers in understanding the real-time demand and trends of the products. Chong et al.,

(2017) stated that understand the product demand and the swing in demand in real-time

can assist managers in obtaining an effective supply chain and overcoming any

challenges managers can encounter.

Another strategy mentioned by four study participants was the use of software and

innovated processes. Manager A1 and A3 explained that it is helpful to utilize different

software programs in developing and assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of supply

chain activities and approaches. Several researchers stated that supply chain managers

need to infuse technology and innovation into a supply chain to enhance supply chain

processes (Sekip-Altug & Van Ryzin, 2014; Narayana, Pati, & Vrat, 2014; Schönsleben,

2016; Wagner & Neshat, 2012). Manager A2 explained that including software and

innovative methods assist managers in gaining a better understanding of supply chain

disruption and the associated risks.

Organizational managers stated that establishing procedures and plans,

developing relationships and effective communication, and deploying a clear strategy,

assist managers to lessen the influence of supply chain disruption. Building stable long

term relationship with suppliers and customers may increase commitment and desire of

all parties to maintain secure relationships. Maintain a secure relationship among supply

chain partners increases partners abilities to make some sacrifices to maintain a stable

production environment during supply chain disruption.

The finding of the study aligns with the conceptual framework. According to the

RDT, managers attempt to manage their resource dependencies by establishing several

forms of interorganizational arrangements to direct organizations toward their benefits

(Klein & Diniz Pereira, 2016). Organizational managers utilize different procedures to

reduce uncertainty in the flow of resources (Klein & Diniz Pereira, 2016), and according

to RDT, establishing interorganizational relationships is an appropriate procedure to

attain organization resources, maintain dependence, and reduce uncertainty (Pfeffer &

Salancik, 2003). Birkie, Trucco, and Campos (2017) stated that obtaining different

strategies can control and reduce the possible effects during a supply chain disruption.

The study participants tried to provide effective strategies to mitigate the negative result

of supply chain disruption in the mining industry, and generously recommend views and

helpful criticism to the supply chain managers and other members who want to enhance

entire supply chain performance.

Applications to Professional Practice

In this qualitative multiple case study, I explored the strategies organizational

managers in the mining industry use to mitigate the negative effects caused by supply

chain disruption. The population included four supply chain managers from two

international organizations located in Jordan who have successfully deployed effective

strategies to mitigate supply chain disruptions. I recruited organizational and supply chain

managers as they are the most appropriate population who could provide answers in

determining and implementing strategies to mitigate the negative results of supply chain

disruptions. I purposely selected the population from organizations located in Jordan as

cases of the reduction of profitability and lack of strategies to mitigate supply chain

disruption risk are major concerns. My intention in exploring this research problem was

to create a social change for society and communities through the most effective

management of organizations resources, which can enable more effective utilization of

resources, and reduce costs for business and consumers. The finding of this study may be

significant to professional supply chain managers as they attempt to mitigate negative

results caused by disruption. New supply chain managers or organizational managers

who seek to improve supply chain performance may be able to use the finding of the

study to develop and deploy more effective strategic plans to mitigate supply chain

disruption and enhance organization performance.

Recognizing the strategies organizational managers utilize to avoid and mitigate

the negative effects of disruptions may improve business performance (Parihar & Rahul,

2014). The findings from this study may enhance organizational practice through the

information that can lessen the negative effects of disruptions in mining supply chains.

The findings from this study may increase managers’ knowledge and understanding of

strategies for preventing and mitigating the negative result of disruptions in supply

chains. Supply chain disruptions negatively influence operations, product quality, and

customer loyalty, and reduced brand value and revenue (Chakravarty, 2013). Wright and

Datskovska (2012) stated that utilizing successful mitigation strategies results in

decreasing organizations costs and may increase profitability. The four organizational

managers I interviewed suggested these themes as strategies to mitigate the negative

result of supply chain disruption. Strategies used to mitigate supply chain disruption

commonly start with building long-term relationships based on trust with suppliers and

customers.

Organizational and supply chain managers can deploy the provided themes to

assist them in improving supply chain performance while mitigating negative results of

supply chain disruption. Obtaining collaborative partnerships in supply chains assist

managers in identifying strategies to mitigate the negative result of supply chain

disruption. According to the experience of the four study participants, the participants

provided the best methods organizational managers can use to mitigate the negative result

of supply chain disruption and sustain organizational productivity during a disruption.

This information may fill gaps in knowledge about effective supply chain strategies to

mitigate supply chain disruption in the mining industry.

Obtaining a supply network built on trust and collaboration can provide a secure

source of supply and distribution point. Chopra and Sodhi (2014) and Park, Hong, and

Roh (2013) stated that obtaining different suppliers and establishing new supplier

networks may improve organizational supply chain processes. According to four study

participants, collaboration within supply chain partners is the essential business practice

managers in the mining industry should use to avoid and mitigate the negative effects of

supply disruptions. According to MacCarthy et al. (2016), supply chain collaboration,

and coordination among supply chain partners may lead to more effective supply chain

competitiveness. Organizational managers explained that collaboration within the supply

chain simplifies information sharing, decision making, and recovery process. The study

findings might close gaps in business practice regarding strategies organizational

managers deploy to effectively avoid and mitigate the negative result of supply chain

disruptions in the mining industry.

Implications for Social Change

The growing complexity of managing a supply chain has resulted in supply chain

disruptions that negatively impact organizational performance and lead to increased cost

(Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2017). Organizational managers who control disruption risk can

enhance organizational performance and competitiveness and add value to customers

(Tse et al., 2016). Successful organizational managers positively improve human and

social conditions by founding jobs, contributing to environmental sustainability, and the

promotion of economic growth (Polonsky et al., 2016). Deploying effective supply chain

management strategies can save organizational resources and enhance customer value

and customer satisfaction (Omar et al., 2012). Gaining knowledge about the proper

strategies to mitigate negative results of supply chain disruption may enhance

organizational supply chain outcomes and increase employment in the community.

Effectively deploy a supply chain risk plan can support organizational profitability and

sustainability. The outcomes of this study can help supply chain managers in the mining

industry to improve supply chain performance during a disruption, sustain organizational

growth, and increase job creation, which supports economic stability and improve social

conditions.

The findings of this study may promote positive social change by presenting

information on strategies to mitigate the negative result of supply chain disruption.

Mitigating the negative result of supply chain disruption may maintain and enhance the

performance of organizations and sustain employees jobs and conditions and lower the

cost of the product, which could lead to an improvement in the lives of employees and

consumers. According to Ellinger et al. (2012), the leading supply chain performer

organizations reveal higher degrees of customer satisfaction and produce higher

levels of shareholder value. Successful organizations and managers positively and

productively impact individual lives and social conditions by founding jobs, contributing

to environmental sustainability plans, and promote economic growth (Polonsky et al.,

2016). Organizational managers can also enhance the standard of living for customers

with smaller incomes because of the decrease in costs. Improved the knowledge and

understanding of mitigation strategies can benefit customers through the delivery of

better services and right quality products. By providing products which satisfy market

demand, organizational managers maintain a sustainable business where individuals and

community may gain from the stable employment opportunities, and customers can gain

from a dependable supply of products which meet their requirements. The study findings

can also influence policy and decision makers in the mining industry in Jordan.

Successful organizations and the engaged community partners provide governments and

local authorities with revenues through taxes, which can be used to create plans to

improve social and economic presence, which can enhance social conditions for

individuals, organizations, and the community.

Recommendations for Action

The growing complexity of managing a supply chain (SC) has resulted in supply

chain disruptions that negatively impact organizational performance and increase costs

(Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2017). Alcantara (2015) stated that according to the Supply

Chain Resilience Survey of over 519 organizations from 71 countries, 75% of these

organizations encountered at least one supply chain disruption, 15% faced disruptions

that cost more than one million euros, and 9% addressed a single disruption that cost

above one million euros. The business problem stated in this study was that some

managers lack strategies to mitigate the negative results of supply chain disruptions.

According to the study findings, I realized that organizational managers could use a

variety of strategies successfully to prevent and mitigate the outcomes of disruptions in

mining supply chains. Based on the study findings, I recommend that organizational

managers adopt a systematic approach to mitigating disruption risk in mining supply

chains. The approach should involve an effective collaboration built on long-term

relationships based on trust that is mutually beneficial for all supply chain partners.

Effective communication and information sharing within the supply chain are essential

factors for successful collaborative relationships. Four study participants in this study

stated that the level of information sharing within a supply chain depends on the level of

trust among partners. I recommend that organizational managers should build a secure

connection of communication among supply chain partners to simplify information flow

and maintain transparent buyer-supplier relationships. Additionally, I recommend that

organizational managers invest in more mutually beneficial relationships with supply

chain partners. Four study participants explained that they provide a competitive price for

customers, and sign long term contracts to increase loyalty and commitment.

Additionally, obtaining a long term relationship with suppliers may improve terms of

price, quality, delivery promises, and increased loyalty.

The findings and recommendations of this study are relevant to organizational

managers, mining managers, supply chain specialists, researchers, and scholars. I will

publish the research results for organizational managers, different participant groups, and

professional development workshops. I will also share the study findings through an

academic business journal.

Recommendations for Further Research

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the strategies organizational

managers utilize to mitigate the negative result of supply chain disruptions in the mining

industry. I used a qualitative multiple case study design, including semi-structured

interviews. The research was specific to organizational managers in the mining industry

located in Jordan. Future researchers may investigate other research methods, quantitative

or mixed methods. Researchers can use the mixed methods approach which combines

statistical analyses of numerical data and thematic data (Turner et al., 2017). Researchers

may utilize a quantitative correlation design to study the performance rate of each

strategy in preventing and minimizing the effects of supply disruptions in the mining

industry. An additional area of research is examining the relationship between the

different mitigation strategies and supply chain performance. Supply chain disruptions

influence many industries; however, in this study, I focused on the mining industry only.

Future researchers can focus on other geographic areas and other industries. An

additional limitation of this study was the use of a small sample of four organizational

managers in the mining industry. According to Boddy (2016), the deployment of a larger

sample could have a different result. Researchers may consider a larger sample.

Performing further research on mitigation strategies may add to the knowledge base of

strategies for mitigating the negative result of disruptions in the mining industry.

Reflections

Finishing this qualitative multiple case study has been one of the most meaningful

challenges of my life. I started working on my doctoral study with limited understanding

of the difficulty and discipline required to complete the journey. My goal was to develop

skills in qualitative research while searching for solutions that address a specific business

problem. Despite the required hard work, discipline, and time to finish this journey, the

prestige associated with the degree, personal satisfaction, and sense of accomplishment

fade any other feelings. I am honored to say that I have accomplished my dream and goal.

Getting through this study, I developed my knowledge of supply chain strategies and

enhanced my researching skills. Writing the literature review was very challenging;

however, I was able to develop a rational framework for my research by applying the

rubric. During this study, I obtained a detailed and in-depth understanding of the research

problem. Overall, the DBA journey was an enriching process for me.

Conclusion

The findings from this qualitative, multiple case study revealed that

organizational managers could mitigate the effects of supply chains disruption by an

efficient collaboration among supply chain partners based on long term relationships built

on trust. Organizational managers need to understand the sources of disruption, assess the

potential impact, and develop the most appropriate strategies. In addition, the finding of

this study revealed that by utilizing the strategies that emerged from the participants’

responses, organizational managers could enhance supply chain sustainability and

performance.

The disruption risks in supply chains and the related costs are of concern to

several organizational leaders. By mitigating the negative results of disruption

effectively, managers can enhance the performance and competitiveness of their

organizations. I recommend that organizational managers, supply chain managers,

researchers, and scholars use the findings and recommendations of this study to obtain

new insights on strategies for mitigating the negative result of supply chain disruption in

the mining industry.

References

Abro, M. M. Q., Khurshid, M. A., & Aamir, A. (2015). The use of mixed methods in

management research. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking, 5(2), 103–108.

Retrieved from http://www.scienpress.com

Adinoff, B., Conley, R. R., Taylor, S. F., & Chezem, L. L. (2013). Protecting

confidentiality in human research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 466–470.

doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12050595

Aggarwal, S., & Srivastava, M. K. (2016). Towards a grounded view of collaboration

in Indian agri-food supply chains: A qualitative investigation. British Food

Journal, 118(5), 1085–1106. doi:10.1108/BFJ-08-2015-0274

Ahmad, W. N. K., de Brito, M. P., & Tavasszy, L. A. (2016). Sustainable supply chain

management in the oil and gas industry: A review of corporate sustainability

reporting practices. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23, 1423–1444.

doi:10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0088

Alcantara, P. (2015). Measuring the influence of industry sector membership on supply

chain disruption reporting. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency

Planning, 8(4), 299–306. Retrieved from

https://www.henrystewartpublications.com/jbcep

AlHusain, R., & Khorramshahgol, R. (2018). A multi-objective approach to design

strategic supply chains and develop responsiveness-efficiency frontiers.

International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 365–386.

doi:10.1108/IJLM-12-2016-0292

Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research.

Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23, 121–127. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/journals/j-cult-drivers/

Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015). Firm’s resilience to supply chain

disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations

Management, 33, 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002

Anderson, V. (2017). Criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 28, 125–133. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21282

Aqlan, F., & Lam, S. S. (2015). Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation.

International Journal of Production Research, 53(18), 5640–5656.

doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1047975

Arik, M., Clark, L. A., & Raffo, D. M. (2016). Strategic responses of non-profit

organizations to the economic crisis: Examining through the lenses of resource

dependency and resourced-based view theories. Academy of Strategic

Management Journal, 15(1), 48–70. Retrieved from

http://alliedacademies.org/Public/Default.aspx

Arora, A., Arora, A. S., & Sivakumar, K. (2016). Relationships among supply chain

strategies, organizational performance, and technological and market turbulences.

International Journal of Logistics Management, 27(1), 206–232.

doi:10.1108/IJLM-09-2013-0103

Bailey, L. F. (2014). The origin and success of qualitative research. International Journal

of Market Research, 56(2), 167–184. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2014-013

Baillie, L. (2015). Promoting and evaluating scientific rigour in qualitative research.

Nursing Standard, 29(46), 36–42. doi:10.7748/ns.29.46.36.e8830

Barros, A. C., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P., & Blanco, E. E. (2013). Selection of tailored

practices for supply chain management. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 33(8), 1040–1074. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-08-2011-0264

Baškarada, S. (2014). Qualitative case study guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1–

18. Retrieved from http://tqr.nova.edu/

Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2015). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.).

London, England: Sage Publications.

Belkadi, F., Messaadia, M., Bernard, A., & Baudry, D. (2017). Collaboration

management framework for OEM – suppliers relationships: A trust-based

conceptual approach. Enterprise Information Systems, 11(7), 1018–1042.

doi:10.1080/17517575.2016.1250166

Bell, J. E., Mollenkopf, D. A., & Stolze, H. J. (2013). Natural resource scarcity and the

closed-loop supply chain: A resource-advantage view. International Journal of

Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43, 351–379.

doi:10.1108/IJPDLM0320120092

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content

analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. doi:10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

Bentahar, O., & Cameron, R. (2015). Design and implementation of a mixed method

research study in project management. Electronic Journal of Business Research

Methods, 13(1), 3–15. Retrieved from http://www.academic-

conferences.org/ejournals.htm

Beske, P., & Seuring, S. (2014). Putting sustainability into supply chain management.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19, 322–331.

doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0432

Birkie, S. E., Trucco, P., & Campos, P. F. (2017). Effectiveness of resilience capabilities

in mitigating disruptions: Leveraging in supply chain structural complexity.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22, 506–521.

doi:10.1108/scm-01-2017-0009

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A

tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health

Research, 26, 1802–1811. doi:10.1177/1049732316654870

Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K. S. & Craighead, C. W. (2011). An empirically derived

framework of global supply resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4): 374–

391. doi:10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011.01032.x

Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., Scheibe, K., & Ambulka X VVR, S. (2018).

Supply chain vulnerability assessment: A network-based visualization and

clustering analysis approach. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,

24(1), 21–30. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2017.10.004

Blackwood, R. A., Maio, R. F., Mrdjenovich, A. J., VandenBosch, T. M., Gordon, P. S.,

Shipman, E. L., & Hamilton, T. A. (2015). Analysis of the nature of IRB

contingencies required for informed consent document approval. Accountability

in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 22, 237–245.

doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.956866

Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research:

An International Journal, 19, 426–432. doi:10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053

Bode, C., & Wagner, S. M. (2015). Structural drivers of upstream supply chain

complexity and the frequency of supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations

Management, 36, 215–228. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.12.004

Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding

responses to supply chain disruptions: insights from information processing and

resource and dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54,

833–856. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870145

Boyson, S. (2014). Cyber supply chain risk management: Revolutionizing the strategic

control of critical IT systems. Technovation, 34(7), 342–353.

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.001

Bratucu, G., & Bratucu, T. (2015). Using the qualitative research in educational

marketing. Bulletin of the Transylvania University of Brasov. Economic Sciences,

Series V, 5(1), 19–24. Retrieved from http://webbut.unitbv.ro

Brinkhoff, A., Özer, Ö., & Sargut, G. (2015). All You Need Is Trust? An Examination of

Inter-organizational Supply Chain Projects. Production & Operations

Management, 24(2), 181–200. doi: 10.1111/poms.12234

Brody, B., Migueles, S. A., & Wendler, D. (2015). Should all research subjects be treated

the same? Hastings Center Report, 45(1), 17–20. doi:10.1002/hast.414

Browne, J., Sackett, P. J., & Wortmann, J. C. (1995). Future manufacturing systems -

towards the extended enterprise. Computers in Industry, 25(3), 235–254.

doi:10.1016/0166-3615(94)00035-O

Bryant, P., & Davis, C. (2012). Regulated change effects on boards of directors: A look

at agency theory and resource dependency theory. Academy of Strategic

Management Journal, 11(2), 1–15. Retrieved from

http://www.questia.com/library/p150926/academy-of-strategic-

managementjournal

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. United Kingdom: Oxford

University Press.

Burdon, W. M., & Harvey, J. (2016). A plea for adoption of ethical compliance. Journal

of Financial Crime, 23(1), 187–200. doi:10.1108/jfc-11-2014-0049

Buzacott, J. A., & Peng, S. H. (2012). Contract design for risk sharing partnerships in

manufacturing. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(3), 656–666.

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.12.008

Cacheche, L. P., Santos, J. A., Santos, E. B. A., & Akabane, G. (2015). Small investors:

Challenges and benefits of IPO - A case study in small business in the region of

Capao Redondo - SP. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 6, 255–

268. doi:10.14807/ijmp.v6i1.255

Carbonara, N., & Pellegrino, 2018. Real options approach to evaluate postponement as

supply chain disruptions mitigation strategy. International Journal of Production

Research, 56(15), 5249–5271. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1403663

100

Caridi, M., Cigolini, R., & DeMarco, D., (2005). Improving supply-chain collaboration

by linking intelligent CPFR. International Journal of Production Research,

43(20), 4191–4218. doi:10.1080/00207540500142134

Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S., & Choi, T. Y. (2015). Toward the theory of the supply chain.

Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 89–97. doi:10.1111/jscm.12073

Cagnin, F., Oliveira, M. C., Simon, A. T., Helleno, A. L., & Vendramini, M. P. (2016).

Proposal of a method for selecting suppliers considering risk management.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(4), 488–498.

doi:10.1108/IJQRM-11-2014-0172

Camuffo, A., Furlan, A., Romano, P., & Vinelli, A. (2007). Routes towards supplier and

production network internationalisation. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 27(4), 371–387. Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/ijopm.htm

Caretta, M. A. (2016). Member checking: A feminist participatory analysis of the use of

preliminary results pamphlets in cross-cultural, cross-language research.

Qualitative Research, 16, 305–318. doi:10.1177/1468794115606495

Carman, M. J., Clark, P. R., Wolf, L. A., & Moon, M. D. (2015). Sampling

considerations in emergency nursing research. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 41,

162–164. doi:10.1016/j.jen.2014.12.016

Castleberry, A. (2014). NVivo 10 software program. version 10. QSR international;

2012. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(1), 1–2.

doi:10.5688/ajpe78125

101

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol

refinement framework. Qualitative Report, 21, 811–831. Retrieved from

http://tqr.nova.edu/

Chakravarty, V. (2013). Managing a supply chain’s web of risk. Strategy & Leadership,

41, 39–45. doi:10.1108/10878571311318231

Chang, W., Ellinger, A. E., & Blackhurst, J. (2015). A contextual approach to supply

chain risk mitigation. International Journal of Logistics Management, 26(3), 642–

656. doi:10.1108/IJLM-02-2014-0026

Chen, Y. S., Su, H. C., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Can I read your mind? Perception gaps in

supply chain relationships. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 22(4),

311–324. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.006

Chih-Feng, C., Ching-Jung, L., Walters, B. G., & Ching-Yieh, L. (2016). Measuring the

moral reasoning competencies of service-learning e-tutors. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 19, 269–281. https://www.jstor.org/

Choi, T-M. (2018). A system of systems approach for global supply chain management in

the big data era. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(1), 91–97.

doi:10.1109/EMR.2018.2810069

Choi, S. Y., Kang, Y. S., & Lee, H. (2008). The effects of socio-technical enablers on

knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination. Journal of Information Science,

34(5), 742–754. doi:10.1177/0165551507087710

Chong, A. Y. L., Ch’ng, E., Liu, M. J., & Li, B. (2017). Predicting consumer product

demands via Big Data: The roles of online promotional marketing and online

102

reviews. International Journal of Production Research, 55(17), 5142–5156.

doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1066519).

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing Risk to Avoid Supply-Chain Breakdown.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 53–62. Retrieved from

http://web.mit.edu/smr

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2014). Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 73–80. Retrieved from

http://sloanreview.mit.edu

Chowdhury, M. F. (2015). Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis:

Debates and discussion. Quality & Quantity, 49, 1135–1143.

doi:10.1007/s1135014-0039-2

Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain. International

Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–13. Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/

Cohen, M. A., & Kunreuther, H. (2007). Operations risk management: Overview of Paul

Kleindorfer’s contributions. Production & Operations Management, 16(5), 525–

541. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/WileyCDA/

Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. MedSurg Nursing, 22,

435–436. Retrieved from https://www.amsn.org/

Constantinou, C. S., Georgiou, M., & Perdikogianni, M. (2017). A comparative method

for themes saturation (CoMeTS) in qualitative interviews. Qualitative Research,

17, 571–588. doi:10.1177/1468794116686650

103

Cope, D. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative

research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 89–91. doi:10.1188/14.ONF.89-91

Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research:

Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions

of Critical Care Nursing, 36, 253–263. doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253

Danese, P., Romano, P., & Formentini, M. (2013). The impact of supply chain integration

on responsiveness: The moderating effect of using an international supplier

network. Transportation Research: Part E, 49(1), 125–140.

doi:10.1016/j.tre.2012.08.002

Dasgupta, M. (2015). Exploring the relevance of case study research. Vision, 19(2), 147–

160. doi:10.1177/0972262915575661

Datta, P. P. (2017). Enhancing competitive advantage by constructing supply chains to

achieve superior performance. Production Planning & Control, 28, 57–74.

doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1231854

Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD

researchers. Qualitative research, 14, 603–616. doi:10.1177/1468794113488126

Diabat, A., Govindan, K., & Panicker, V. V. (2012). Supply chain risk management and

its mitigation in a food industry. International Journal of Production Research,

50(11), 3039–3050. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.588619

Dikko, M. (2016). Establishing construct validity and reliability: Pilot testing of a

qualitative interview for research in Takaful (Islamic insurance). Qualitative

Report, 21, 521–528. Retrieved from http://tqr.nova.edu/

104

Dong, S. T., Butow, P. N., Agar, M., Lovell, M. R., Boyle, F., Stockler, M., ... Tong, A.

(2016). Original article: Clinicians’ perspectives on managing symptom clusters

in advanced cancer: A semistructured interview study. Journal of Pain and

Symptom Management, 51, 706–717.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.11.021

Dries, L., Gorton, M., Urutyan, V., & White, J. (2014). Supply chain relationships,

supplier support programmes and stimulating investment: evidence from the

Armenian dairy sector. Supply Chain Management, 19(1), 98–107.

doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2012-0380

Durach, C. F., Wieland, A., & Machuca, J. A. D. (2015). Antecedents and dimensions of

supply chain robustness: a systematic literature review. International Journal of

Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 118–137.

doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0133

Edwards, G. (2017). Big ideas in social science. International Journal of Research &

Method in Education, 40(2), 221–222. doi:10.1080/1743727x.2016.1275277

Ellinger, A., Shin, H., Northington, W. M., Adams, F. G., Hofman, D., & O’Marah, K.

(2012). The influence of supply chain management competency on customer

satisfaction and shareholder value. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, 17(3), 249–262. doi:10.1108/13598541211227090

Ellis, P. D. (2016). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis,

and the interpretation of research results. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

105

Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014).

Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–10.

doi:10.1177/2158244014522633

Enyinda, C. I., Mbah, C. H. N., & Ogbuehi, A. (2010). An empirical analysis of risk

mitigation in the pharmaceutical industry supply chain: A developing-country

perspective. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(1), 45–54.

doi:10.1002/tie.20309

Eriksson, T. (2013). Methodological issues in dynamic capabilities research - a critical

review. Baltic Journal of Management, 8, 306–327. doi:10.1108/BJOM-Jul-

20110072

Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., & Watson, G. (2016). Sustainable supply chain management in

emerging economies: Trade-offs between environmental and cost performance.

International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 350–366.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.013

Esmaeilikia, M., Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Govindan, K., Kumar, A., & Mo, J. (2016).

Tactical supply chain planning models with inherent flexibility: definition and

review. Annals of Operations Research, 244, 407–427. doi:10.1007/s10479-014-

1544-3

Essary, M. L. (2014). Key external factors influencing successful distance education

programs. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 18, 121–136. Retrieved

from http://www.alliedacademies.org

106

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling

and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics,

5, 1–4. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Fabbe-Costes, N., Roussat, C., Taylor, M., & Taylor, A. (2014). Sustainable supply

chains: a framework for environmental scanning practices. International Journal

of Operations & Production Management, 34(4), 664–694. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-

10-2012-0446

Faisal, M. N., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. (2007). Management of risk in supply

chains: SCOR approach and analytic network process. Supply Chain Forum:

International Journal, 8(2), 66–79. doi:10.1080/16258312.2007.11517183

Fan, Y., & Stevenson, M. (2018). A review of supply chain risk management: definition,

theory, and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

Logistics Management, 48(3), 205–230. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0043

Fawcett, S. E., McCarter, M. W., Fawcett, A. M., Webb, G. S., & Magnan, G. M. (2015).

Why supply chain collaboration fails: the socio-structural view of resistance to

relational strategies. Supply Chain Management, 20(6), 648–663.

doi:10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0331

Fernandes, A. C., Sampaio, P., Sameiro, M., & Truong, H. Q. (2017). Supply chain

management and quality management integration: A concept model proposal.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 34, 53–67.

doi:10.1108/ijqrm-03-2015-0041

107

Ferreira, J. J., Moreno, M. F., Brandao, R., & Cerqueira, R. (2016). Multimedia in

cognitive-intensive practices: a case with ATLAS. it supporting HCI qualitative

research. 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, 679–684.

doi:10.1109/ISM.2016.0144

Foerstl, K., Azadegan, A., Leppelt, T., & Hartmann, E. (2015). Drivers of supplier

sustainability: Moving beyond compliance to commitment. Journal of Supply

Chain management, 51(1), 67–92. doi:10.1111/jscm.12067

Fu, D., Ionescu, C. M., Aghezzaf, E., & De Keyser, R. (2016). A constrained EPSAC

approach to inventory control for a benchmark supply chain system. International

Journal of Production Research, 54(1), 232–250.

doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1070214

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative

research. The Qualitative Report, 20, 1408–1416. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/9/fusch1

Gadde, L.-E., & Snehota, I. (2000). Making the Most of Supplier Relationships.

Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 305–316. doi:10.1016/s0019-

8501(00)00109-7

Gagnon, M., Jacob, J. D., McCabe, J. (2015). Locating the qualitative interview:

Reflecting on space and place in nursing research. Journal of Research in

Nursing, 20, 203–215. doi:10.1177/1744987114536571

Gallagher, C. T., Mcdonald, L. J., & Mccormack, N. P. (2014). Undergraduate research

involving human subjects should not be granted ethical approval unless it is likely

108

to be of publishable quality. HEC Forum, 26(2), 169–180.

doi:10.1007/s10730013-9232-2

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2016). Technological exaptation: A narrative

approach. Industrial & Corporate Change, 25(1), 149–166.

doi:10.1093/icc/dtv050

Gaudenzi, B., & Borghesi, A. (2006). Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP

method. International Journal of Logistics Management, 17(1), 114–136.

doi:10.1108/09574090610663464

Gergen, K. J., Josselson, R., & Freeman, M. (2015). The promises of qualitative inquiry.

American Psychologist, 70(1), 1–9. doi:10.1037/a0038597

Gerring, J. (2017). Qualitative methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 15–

36. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158

Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative

research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative

Report, 20, 1772–1789. Retrieved from http://tqr.nova.edu/

Gheondea-Eladi, A. (2014). Is qualitative research generalizable? Journal of Community

Positive Practices, 14, 114–124. Retrieved from http://jppc.ro

Giannakis, M., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016). Supply chain sustainability: A risk

management approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 171,

455–470. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.06.032

109

Gibbs, B. G., Shafer, K., & Dufur, M. J. (2015). Why infer? The use and misuse of

population data in sport research. International Review for the Sociology of Sport,

50(1), 115–121. doi:10.1177/1012690212469019

Gladwell, P. W., Badlan, K., Cramp, F., & Palmer, S. (2015). Direct and indirect benefits

reported by users of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic

musculoskeletal pain: Qualitative exploration using patient interviews. Physical

Therapy, 95, 1518–1528. doi:10.2522/ptj.20140120

Gledhill, A., & Harwood, C. (2014). Developmental experiences of elite female youth

soccer players. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 150–

165. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2014.880259

Gligor, D. M., Holcomb, M. C., & Stank, T. P. (2013). A multidisciplinary approach to

supply chain agility: Conceptualization and scale development. Journal of

Business Logistics, 34(2), 94–108. doi:10.1111/jbl.12012

Goldberg, A., & Allen, K. (2015). Communicating qualitative research: Some practical

guideposts for scholars. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 3–22.

doi:10.1111/jomf.12153

Gualandris, J., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015). Mitigating the effect of risk conditions on

supply disruptions: the role of manufacturing postponement enablers. Production

Planning & Control, 26(8), 637–653. doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.955895

Guertler, B., & Spinler, S. (2015). When does operational risk cause supply chain

enterprises to tip? A simulation of intra-organizational dynamics. Omega, 57, 54–

69. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.005

110

Gunasekaran, A., Kumar Tiwari, M., Dubey, R., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2016). Big data

and predictive analytics applications in supply chain management. Computers &

Industrial Engineering, 101, 525–527. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.10.020

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Rahman, S. (2017). Improving supply chain

performance through management capabilities. Production Planning & Control,

28(6/8), 473–477. doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1309680

Green, K., & Inman, R. (2005). Using a just-in-time selling strategy to strengthen supply

chain linkages. International Journal of Production Research, 43(16), 3437–

3453. doi:10.1080/00207540500118035

Green, K. W., Toms, L. C., & Clark, J. (2015). Impact of market orientation on

environmental sustainability strategy. Management Research Review, 38, 217–

238. doi:10.1108/MRR-10-2013-0240

Greening, P., & Rutherford, C. (2011). Disruptions and supply networks: A multi-level,

multi-theoretical relational perspective. International Journal of Logistics

Management, 22, 104–126. doi:10.1108/09574091111127570

Grossoehme, D. H. (2014). Overview of qualitative research. Journal of Health Care

Chaplaincy, 20, 109–122. doi:10.1080/08854726.2014.925660

Hadi, M. A., & Closs, S. J. (2016). Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative

research in clinical pharmacy. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38,

641–646. Retrieved from

http://www.springer.com/medicine/internal/journal/11096

111

Hajmohammad, S., & Vachon, S. (2016). Mitigation, Avoidance, or Acceptance?

Managing Supplier Sustainability Risk. Journal of Supply Chain Management,

52(2), 48–65. doi:10.1111/jscm.12099

Hallikas, J., & Lintukangas, K. (2016). Purchasing and supply: An investigation of risk

management performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 171,

487–494. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.013

Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing claims for data: A critique of common

practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 23, 37–46. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.802652

Harvey, L. (2015). Beyond member-checking: A dialogic approach to the research

interview. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38, 23–38.

doi:10.1080/1743727X.2014.914487

Hearnshaw, E. J. S., & Wilson, M. M. J. (2013). A complex network approach to supply

chain network theory. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 33, 442–469. doi:10.1108/01443571311307343

Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). Review: A critical review on supply chain

risk - Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119–132.

doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.10.004

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning

saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27,

591–608. doi:10.1177/1049732316665344

112

Hill, C. W., Jones, G. R., Schilling, M. A. (2014). Strategic management theory: An

integrated approach. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Hiriscau, I. E., Stingelin-giles, N., Stadler, C., Schmeck, K., & Reiter-Theil, S. (2014). A

right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting

prevention research with children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent

Psychiatry, 23, 409–416. doi:10.1007/s00787-014-0526-y

Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H., & Talluri, S. (2015). Supply chain risk management: a

literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 53(16), 5031–

5069. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1030467

Hofmann, E. (2017). Big data and supply chain decisions: the impact of volume, variety

and velocity properties on the bullwhip effect. International Journal of

Production Research, 55(17), 5108–5126. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1061222

Hull, S. C., & Wilson, D. R. (2017). Beyond Belmont: Ensuring respect for AI/AN

communities through tribal IRBs, laws, and policies. American Journal of

Bioethics, 17(7), 60–62. doi:10.1080/15265161.2017.1328531

Hum, S., Parlar, M., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Production, Manufacturing and Logistics:

Measurement and optimization of responsiveness in supply chain networks with

queueing structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 264, 106–118.

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.009

Huo, B., Zhang, C., & Zhao, X. (2015). The effect of IT and relationship commitment on

supply chain coordination: A contingency and configuration approach.

Information & Management, 52(6), 728–740. doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.06.007

113

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical

review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative

Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1), 1–12. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23606

Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., Keramydas, C., & Partsch, D. (2014). Dual sourcing for

mitigating humanitarian supply chain disruptions. Journal of Humanitarian

Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 4, 245–264. doi:10.1108/JHLSCM-03-

2013-0008

Ibrahim, S. B., & Hamid, A. A. (2014). Supply Chain Management Practices and Supply

Chain Performance Effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Research

(IJSR), 3(8), 187–195. Retrieved from www.ijsr.net

Ibrahim, H. W., Zailani, S., & Tan, K. C. (2015). A content analysis of global supply

chain research. Benchmarking, 22, 1429–1462. doi:10.1108/BIJ-04-2013-0038

Ibrahim, N., & Edgley, A. (2015). Embedding researcher’s reflexive accounts within the

analysis of a semi-structured qualitative interview. The Qualitative Report, 20,

1671–1681. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss10/9

Ivanov, D. (2017). Simulation-based ripple effect modelling in the supply chain.

International Journal of Production Research, 55(7), 2083–2101.

doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1275873

Ivanov, D., Mason, S. J., & Hartl, R. (2016). Supply chain dynamics, control and

disruption management. International Journal of Production Research, 54(1), 1–

7. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1114186

114

Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of digital information at

the intersection of Big Data Analytics and supply chain management.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(1), 10–36.

doi:10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-0078

Kaefer, F., Roper, J., & Sinha, P. (2015). A software-assisted qualitative content analysis

of new articles: Example and reflections. Forum: Qualitative Social

Research,16(2), 8–28. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net

Kaki, A., Salo, A., & Talluri, S. (2015). Disruptions in supply networks: A probabilistic

risk assessment approach. Journal of Business Logistics, 36(3), 273–287.

doi:10.1111/jbl.12086

Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2017). An assessment of supply chain disruption

mitigation strategies. International Journal of Production Economics, 18(4), 210–

230. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.011

Kayis, B., & Karningsih, P. D. (2012). SCRISA knowledge-based system tool for

assisting manufacturing organizations in identifying supply chain risks. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(7), 834–852.

doi:10.1108/17410381211267682

Kembro, J., & Näslund, D. (2014). Information sharing in supply chains, myth or reality?

A critical analysis of empirical literature. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, 44(3), 179–200. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-09-

2012-0287

115

Kern, F. G. (2016). The trials and tribulations of applied triangulation: Weighing

different data sources. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10, 1–16.

doi:10.1177/1558689816651032

Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International Journal

of Business and Management, 9(11), 224–233. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p224

Kim, B., Park, K. S., Jung, S., & Park, S. H. (2018). Production, manufacturing and

logistics: Offshoring and outsourcing in a global supply chain: Impact of the

arm’s length regulation on transfer pricing. European Journal of Operational

Research, 266, 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.004

Kirovska, Z., Josifovska, A., & Kiselicki, M. (2016). Efficient management of supply

chain in achieving a significant competitive advantage in the market. Journal of

Sustainable Development (1857-8519), 5(14), 5–22. Retrieved from

http://www.fbe.edu.mk

Kisaka, S. E., & Anthony, M. (2014). An analysis of the presence of an entrepreneurial

culture in Kenya: An application of the population ecology theory and the

resource dependence theory. European Journal of Business and Management, 6,

184–191. Retrieved from http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM

Klein, L. L., & Diniz Pereira, B. A. (2016). The survival of interorganizational networks:

A proposal based on resource dependence theory. Revista De Administração

Mackenzie, 17(4), 153–175. doi:10.1590/1678-

9712016/administracao.v17n4p153-175

116

Klüber, T. E. (2014). Atlas.ti as a tool for analysis of qualitative research according

phenomenological approach. Educação Temática Digital, 16(1), 5–23. Retrieved

from http://basessibi.c3sl.ufpr.br/brapci/v/18016

Knoppen, D., Johnston, D., & Sáenz, M. J. (2015). Supply chain relationships as a

context for learning leading to innovation. International Journal of Logistics

Management, 26(3), 543–567. doi:10.1108/IJLM-09-2012-0089

Konig, A., & Spinler, S. (2016). The effect of logistics outsourcing on the supply chain

vulnerability of shippers. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 27,

122–141. doi:10.1108/IJLM-03-2014-0043

Kornbluh, M. (2015). Combatting challenges to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative

research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12, 397–414.

doi:10.1080/14780887.2015.1021941

Kruth, J. G. (2015). Five qualitative research approaches and their applications in

parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 79(2), 219–233. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/openview/

Kumar, A., & Kushwaha, G. S. (2018). Supply chain management practices and

operational performance of fair price shops in India: an empirical study.

Logforum, 14(1), 85–99. doi:10.17270/J.LOG.2018.237

Kumar, G., & Banerjee, R. N. (2014). Supply chain collaboration index: an instrument to

measure the depth of collaboration. Benchmarking: An International Journal,

21(2), 184–204. doi:10.1108/BIJ-02-2012-0008

117

Kumar, R., & Kumar Singh, R. (2017). Coordination and responsiveness issues in SME

supply chains: a review. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(3), 635–

650. doi:10.1108/BIJ-03-2016-0041

Kumar, S., Himes, K. J., & Kritzer, C. P. (2014). Risk assessment and operational

approaches to managing risk in global supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, 25, 873–890. doi:10.1108/JMTM-04-2012-0044

Kurniawan, R., Zailani, S. H., Iranmanesh, M., & Rajagopal, P. (2017). The effects of

vulnerability mitigation strategies on supply chain effectiveness: risk culture as

moderator. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22 (1), 1–15.

doi:10.1108/SCM-12-2015-0482

Lach, D. (2014) Challenges of interdisciplinary research: Reconciling qualitative and

quantitative methods for understanding human-landscape systems. Environmental

Management, 53, 88–93. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0115-8

Lai, G., Debo, L. G., & Sycara, K. (2009). Sharing inventory risk in supply chain: The

implication of financial constraint. Omega, 37(4), 811–825.

doi:10.1016/j.omega.2008.06.003

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research.

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4, 324–327.

doi:10.4103/22494863.161306

Levi-Bliech, M., Naveh, G., Pliskin, N., & Fink, L. (2018). Mobile Technology and

Business Process Performance: The Mediating Role of Collaborative Supply-

118

Chain Capabilities. Information Systems Management, 35(4), 308–329.

doi:10.1080/10580530.2018.1503803

Li, G., Fan, H., Lee, P. K. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2015). Joint supply chain risk

management: An agency and collaboration perspective. International Journal of

Production Economics, 164, 83–94. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.02.021

Li, Y., Zhen, X., Qi, X., & Cai, G. (2016). Penalty and financial assistance in a supply

chain with supply disruption. Omega, 61, 167-181.

doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.011

Liao, S., Ding, L., & Hu, D. (2017). Assessing the influence of supply chain

collaboration value innovation, supply chain capability and competitive advantage

in Taiwan’s networking communication industry. International Journal of

Production Economics, 191, 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.001

Lii, P., & Kuo, F.-I. (2016). Innovation-oriented supply chain integration for combined

competitiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Production

Economics, 174, 142–155. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.01.018

Liu, W., Wang, S., & Chen, L. (2017). The role of control power allocation in service

supply chains: Model analysis and empirical examination. Journal of Purchasing

& Supply Management, 23(3), 176–190. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2017.02.001

MacCarthy, B. L., Blome, C., Olhager, J., Srai, J. S., & Zhao, X. (2016). Supply chain

evolution – theory, concepts and science. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 36(12), 1696–1718. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-02-2016-0080

119

Macdonald, J. R., & Corsi, T. M. (2013). Supply chain disruption management: Severe

events, recovery, and performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 34, 270–288.

doi:10.1111/jbl.12026

Mackelprang, A. W., Robinson, J. L., Bernardes, E., & Webb, G. S. (2014). The

relationship between strategic supply chain integration and performance: A meta-

analytic evaluation and implications for supply chain management research.

Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 71–96. doi:10.1111/jbl.12023

Madill, A., & Sullivan, P. (2017). Mirrors, portraits, and member checking: Managing

difficult moments of knowledge exchange in the social sciences. Qualitative

Psychology, 3, 1–18. doi:10.1037/qup0000089

Malagon-Maldonado, G. (2014). Qualitative research in health design. HERD: Health

Environments Research & Design Journal, 7, 120–134.

doi:10.1177/193758671400700411

Malatesta, D., & Smith, C. R. (2014). Lessons from resource dependence theory for

contemporary public and nonprofit management. Public Administration Review,

74, 14–25. doi:10.1111/puar.12181

Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative

interview studies: Guided by information power. Innovative Methods, 26, 1753–

1760. doi:10.1177/1049732315617444

Manu, E., Ankrah, N., Chinyio, E., & Proverbs, D. (2015). Trust influencing factors in

main contractor and subcontractor relationships during projects. International

120

Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1495–1508.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.006

Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3),

192–223. doi:10.1108/09600030810866986

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in

qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. The

Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22.

doi:10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Masten, K. A., & Kim, S. L. (2015). So many mechanisms, so little action: The case for

3rd party supply chain coordination. International Journal of Production

Economics, 168, 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.06.005

McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed

methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30, 537–542.

doi:10.1177/0267659114559116

McNeil, A. J., Frey, R., & Embrechts, P. (2015). Quantitative risk management:

Concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mellat-Parast, M., & Spillan, J. E. (2014). Logistics and supply chain process integration

as a source of competitive advantage: An empirical analysis. International

Strategies to Mitigate Negative Results of Supply Chain Disruptio

Students also viewed