The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

IJLM
19,3 A unified model of supply chain
agility: the work-design
perspective
408
Xun Li, Chen Chung, Thomas J. Goldsby and Clyde W. Holsapple
Decision Sciences and Information Systems (DSIS),
Gatton College of Business and Economics,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical model of supply chain agility and,
based on that, develop a research framework for investigating linkages between supply chain agility
and firm competitiveness.
Design/methodology/approach The conceptual model of supply chain agility introduced here is
based on an inter-disciplinary literature review, which concentrates on peer-reviewed journal papers
on agility published within the period 1990-2007. Among a total of 583 papers, representative studies
are chosen and analyzed to identify key elements of supply chain agility, and to point out issues that
have yet to be addressed.
Findings He was found that even though there has been considerable research on the topic of
agility, in general, there is relatively little examination of agility in the supply chain context. These few
studies are not unified in their conceptualizations of agility and tend to adopt fairly limited views of
supply chain dimensionality. This situation suggests that there is a need for a theory-driven, unified
model of agility in supply chains.
Originality/value This paper fulfills an identified need for a comprehensive conceptual model of
supply chain agility. Built from a work-design perspective, this new conceptualization of supply chain
agility offers a theoretical platform for guiding future research and practice concerned with achieving
supply chain agility.
Keywords Competitive analysis, Response time, Supply chain management, Work design,
Agile production
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In todays constantly changing environment, an organizations supply chain agility is a
critical element affecting its global competitiveness (Lee, 2004; Swafford et al., 2006).
More generally, agility has been identified as a key element in the science of
competitiveness allowing the firm to ride atop such environmental mega-waves as
market dynamism, mass customization, virtual organizations, continuous learning,
pervasive computing, and socio-political diversity, while simultaneously being able to
successfully cope with the inevitable environmental storms that often strike with little
The International Journal of Logistics advance notice (Holsapple and Jin, 2007). In seizing the opportunities and handling the
Management
Vol. 19 No. 3, 2008
pp. 408-435 This research is sponsored in part by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense of
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-4093
Networks and Information Integration, through its Command & Control Research Program and
DOI 10.1108/09574090810919224 the Center for Edge Power at the Naval Postgraduate School.
disturbances that this complex twenty-first century presents, agility is highlighted as A unified model
the fundamental characteristic of the best supply chains (Lee, 2004). of supply chain
To support his contention that firms can use agile supply chains to differentiate
themselves from rivals, Lee (2004) analyzes the case of how three European apparel agility
companies (H&M, Mango, and Zara) have become Europes most profitable apparel
brands by building agility into every link of their supply chains. At one end of their
product pipelines, the three firms have devised agile design processes. As soon as 409
designers spot possible trends, they create sketches and order fabrics. This gives them
a head start over competitors because fabric suppliers require the longest lead times.
However, the companies finalize designs and manufacture garments only after they get
reliable sales data from stores. This allows them to make products that meet consumer
tastes, while reducing the number of items they must sell at discounts. At the other end
of the pipeline, all three firms have super-efficient distribution centers. They use
state-of-the-art sorting and material-handling technologies to ensure that distribution
does not become a bottleneck when they must respond to demand fluctuations. H&M,
Mango, and Zara have all grown at more than 20 per cent annually since 1990, and
their double-digit net profit margins are the envy of the industry (Lee, 2004).
As the beneficial impact of organizational agility has become generally
acknowledged (Giachetti et al., 2003; Sharifi and Zhang, 2001; van Hoek, 1998),
researchers from various disciplines have proposed theories about organizational
agility offering definitions and characterizations of relationships among components
within the agility domain. For example, some scholars view agility as a flexible
response to customer needs, thus focusing on how agile practices (e.g., postponement
strategy) are associated with agile performance, by allowing more opportunity to
respond to demand changes in a flexible way (Stank et al., 1996; van Hoek et al., 2001).
Others highlight speed as an element of agility and assert that computer technologies
are platforms for agility facilitating time reductions in product design and
development (Frayret et al., 2001; Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Yet others contend that a
timely awareness to changes is a necessary component of agility and emphasize the
role of knowledge management in providing awareness to changes (Dove, 2005;
Holsapple and Jones, 2005).
Overall, however, the theoretical base for understanding supply chain agility is
fragmented, and linkages among elements of agility are underdeveloped. Indeed, the
concept of agility is ambiguous, as researchers are still at the stage of defining factors
or determinants of agility (Giachetti et al., 2003). Recognizing the competitive
importance of achieving agility in supply chains, this paper explores the concept and
dimensions of supply chain agility in the course of developing a comparatively
comprehensive and unified model that researchers can use in designing their studies of
supply chain agility and practitioners can ponder as they strive for fresh insights into
what it takes to realize more agile supply chains. Specifically, the model identifies the
key elements of supply chain agility and provides a new perspective evaluating the
levels of supply chain agility.
We conceptualize supply chain agility from a work-design perspective. Work
design refers to the system of arrangements and procedures for organizing work (Sinha
and Van de Ven, 2005). We take this perspective for two major reasons. First, an
organizations dynamic capabilities, including agility, are embedded in work routines,
which are shaped by work design (Teece et al., 1997). Second, a supply chain system is
IJLM a work-design system, involving arrangement of the set of distributed work activities
19,3 for transforming raw materials into final products across the network of companies
that compose the supply chain. To build and operate a supply chain that is agile, it is
helpful to have an in-depth understanding of the systems for designing and
implementing work as a framework for understanding supply chain agility issues.
We consider three levels in the model introduced here: strategic, operational, and
410 episodic. Supply chain agility manifests on multiple levels and agility for each level is
affected by the work-design at that level.
The remainder of this paper contains four sections. Section 2 summarizes
multi-discipline literature that offers various agility definitions, plus conceptual
models of supply chain agility. To address limitations of previous studies, Section 3
introduces a general definition of supply chain agility that incorporates notions
advanced in earlier conceptualizations of agility. Framed by this new definition,
dimensions of supply chain agility are developed. Then, the work design perspective is
applied in developing a conceptual model of supply chain agility at multiple levels.
Section 4 develops a research framework that advances research propositions linking
supply chain agility to firm competitiveness. The fifth section concludes with
suggestions on topics for further research.

Literature review
To understand supply chain agility, we need to first clarify the meaning of agility.
Because agility is a very broad and multi-dimensional concept, involves diverse
aspects of an organization, and involves supply chain agility as but one issue of
organizational agility (Swafford et al., 2006), we conduct a multi-disciplinary review of
prior agility studies. Then, we focus on work that has been conducted in the
logistics/supply chain management domain.
To identify candidates for this literature review, we use an electronic journal
database: the ISI Web of Knowledge. We use agility as the keyword in a search across
the time period from 1990-2007 and within business and economics subject areas.
A total of 583 articles were found. In order to identify the most relevant and influential
pieces, we considered three criteria. The first criterion is the papers relevance to
supply chain management; the second is its citation counts; and the third is whether
the paper presents a definition on agility. Of the original 583 articles, we deduced 16
that provided definitions of supply chain agility and were determined to be
representative of the most prominent and influential studies on supply chain agility so
far. Additional works were reviewed and are referenced here as they contribute to our
understanding and development of the supply chain agility construct.

Prior studies of agility

Agility, as a business concept, was coined in the manufacturing context particularly
in relation to flexible manufacturing systems (Nagel and Dove, 1991). Later, the idea of
manufacturing flexibility was extended into a wider business context, and the concept
of agility as an organizational trait was born (Christopher and Towill, 2002).
In 1991, a group of researchers at the Iaccoca Institute, Lehigh University,
investigated how the USA could regain its pre-eminence in manufacturing. Their
report recommends adoption of an agile manufacturing paradigm. The reports notion
of agile manufacturing involves competitive foundations, characteristics, elements,
and enabling subsystems of agility. A pioneering work, this report was well received A unified model
by many academics, practitioners, and government officials. However, some scholars of supply chain
argue that the agility, as used in the Iacocca report was ill-defined, and they advocate
more work to refine the concept (Burgess, 1994). According to Yusuf et al. (1999), the agility
concept of agility as expounded in the report lacked solid grounding in management
theory (p. 34).
Since the publication of the Iacocca report, many publications on agility in a 411
manufacturing context have appeared in the form of books (Goldman et al., 1995; Kidd,
1994), trade magazines (OConnor, 1994; Pandiarajan and Patun, 1994; Tracy et al.,
1994), and academic journals (Kumar and Motwani, 1995; Kusiak and He, 1997),
collectively giving an impetus to development of the agile manufacturing (AM)
paradigm. However, Cao and Dowlatshahi (2005) point out in their literature summary
that the majority of the publications regarding AM are either conceptual or
exploratory, with limited managerial implications. Most of the studies lack theoretical
foundation, empirical evidence, and rigorous analysis.
With the evolutionary transformation of the general business environment into a
condition of rapid and incessant change, researchers from other disciplines have begun
to expand the agility paradigm into a solution for maintaining competitive advantage
in a changing environment. For example, supply chain management researchers claim
agility as an attribute closely tied to the effectiveness of strategic supply chain
management (Ketchen and Hult, 2007; Lee, 2004). From a knowledge management
angle, researchers consider agility as a major attribute of a new organization form:
knowledge-based network organizations (Holsapple and Whinston, 1987; Dove, 2005).
Scholars in diverse disciplines emphasize varying facets of agility and this is
reflected in divergent views of what agility is. The concept of agility has been
represented as comprehensively as a total integration of business components (Kidd,
1994, 2000) or as narrowly as the ability to accomplish rapid changeover from the
assembly of one product to the assembly of a different product (Quinn et al., 1997). In
order to gain a better understanding of what constitutes agility, Table I displays
representative definitions from several disciplines.
Taking all of these definitions together, we see that a consensus regarding the
nature and factors of agility has not yet emerged. There are some commonalities, some
distinctions, and some gaps. Moreover, a few of the definitions discuss is not the agility
concept, but the attributes or characteristics of agile enterprises (Goldman et al., 1995,
Zhang and Sharifi, 2000).
To further understand the agility concept, we extract key facets from the definitions
in Table I. These are summarized in Table II along with explanations from definitions
in the corresponding studies. We note a common thread in these definitions, which
depict agility as change-embracing and competitiveness-oriented. To achieve that, we
see a dual emphasis across these definitions on two agility factors, speed and the
capabilities of the firm to use resources to respond to changes. As to what these
response capabilities are and how agility facets are related with each other, there is
substantial variation. For example, some studies take flexibility as a type of response
capability (Zhang and Shariff, 2000; Yusuf et al., 1999; Dove, 1994, 1999), while some
regard flexibility as the antecedent of agility (Swafford et al., 2006).
The theme for agility varies across research domains. Across manufacturing
viewpoints, we see an emphasis on the capacity of the firm to change internal processes
 19,3

412
IJLM

Table I.

and metrics
Agility definitions
Source Definition Agility Metrics

Manufacturing
Goldman et al. (1995) A construct having the following strategic
dimensions: enriching the customer, cooperating
both internally and externally to enhance
competitiveness, organizing to both adapt to and
thrive on change and uncertainty, and leveraging
the impact of people and information
Kumar and Motwani (1995) A firms ability to accelerate the activities on the A composite value of the strategic agility position
critical path of a firm, on a percentage scale, is computed
based on the weighted sum of the firms
performance on each element of a matrix. The
matrix represents all combinations of
time-segments and agility determinants (material
and information flow, state of technology,
specialized functions, human resource factors,
quality and flexibility)
DeVor et al. (1997) The ability of a producer of goods and services to
operate profitably in a competitive environment
of continuous and unpredictable change
The ability to accomplish rapid changeover from
the assembly of one product to the assembly of a
Quinn et al. (1997) different product
The ability of an organization to thrive in a Cost, time, robustness, and scope
continuously changing, unpredictable business
Dove (1994, 1999) environment
Yusuf et al. (1999) The successful exploration of competitive bases
(speed, flexibility, innovation, pro-activity,
quality, profitability) through integration of
reconfigurable resources and best practices in a
knowledge-rich environment to provide
customer-driven products and services in a
fast-changing market environment
(continued)
Source Definition Agility Metrics

Zhang and Sharifi (2000) A combination of three elements: (1) agility Assessment model for agility: assessment of the
drivers, which are the changes/pressures from the organizations need for agility; assessment of the
business environment that necessitate search for organizations current level of agility
new ways of running a business in order to
maintain competitive advantage; (2) agility
capabilities, which are the essential capabilities
that a firm needs in order to positively respond to
and take advantage of the changes; (3) agility
providers, which are the means whereby the
so-called capabilities could be obtained
Sarkis (2001) Agility is the ability to thrive in environment of
continuous and often unanticipated change
Logistics Management & Supply Chain Management
Global Logistics Research Team (1995) Addresses how well a firm responds to customers Relevancy, accommodation, flexibility
changing needs and is marked by the abilities to
meet unique customer requests and adapt to
unexpected circumstances
Naylor et al. (1999) Use of marketing knowledge and virtual
organization to exploit profitable opportunities in
a volatile environment
van Hoek et al. (2001) A management concept centered around
responsiveness to dynamic and turbulent markets
and customer demand
Swafford et al. (2006) Supply chain agility refers to the supply chains
capability to adapt or respond in a speedy manner Procurement/sourcing flexibility, manufacturing
to a changing marketplace environment flexibility, distribution/logistics flexibility
Knowledge Management
Source Definition Agility Metrics
Dove (2005) Skilled practices for knowledge management
(providing awareness), value proposition (to
select actions), and response ability (to enable
change)
(continued)
agility
of supply chain
A unified model

413

Table I.
 19,3

414
IJLM

Table I.
Source Definition Agility Metrics

Holsapple and Jones (2005) The ability to be alert to unexpected changes and
the ability to quickly adapt the use of existing
resources to cope with challenges and
opportunities presented by these changing
circumstances
Supply chain agility refers to the supply chains
capability to adapt or respond in a speedy manner Procurement/sourcing flexibility, manufacturing
Swafford et al. (2006) to a changing marketplace environment flexibility, distribution/logistics flexibility
Information Systems (Strategy)
Sambamurthy et al. (2003) The ability to detect and seize competitive market
opportunities by assembling requisite assets,
knowledge, and relationships with speed and
surprise. Agility is comprised of three interrelated
capabilities:
Customer agility: ability to co-opt customers in
the exploration and exploitation of opportunities
for innovation and competitive action moves;
Partnering agility: ability to leverage the assets,
knowledge, and competences of suppliers,
distributors, contact manufactures, and logistics
providers through alliances, partnerships, and
joint ventures; and
Operational agility: ability of firms business
processes to accomplish speed, accuracy, and cost
of economy in the exploitation of opportunities for
innovation and competitive action
 Response Quality/ Profitability/ Accommodation/ Changes/
Articles Alertness Speed capability Flexibility Pro-activity accu-racy cost Relevancy adaptation uncertainty Competitive-ness

Manufacturing domain
Goldman et al.
(1995) * * *
Kumar and
Motwani
(1995) * *
DeVor et al.
(1997) * * *
Quinn et al.
(1997) * *
Dove (1994,
1999) * * * *
Yusuf et al.
(1999) * * * * * * *
Zhang and
Sharif (2000) * * * *
Sarkis (2001) * *
Logistics/supply chain management domain
Bowersox et al.
(1995) * * * * *
Naylor et al.
(1999) * *
van Hoek et al.
(2001) * *
Swafford et al.
(2006) * * * * *
Knowledge management domain
Dove (2005) * * * *
Holsapple and
Jones (2005) * *
Information system domain
Sambamurthy
et al. (2003) * * * * * *
agility
of supply chain

Agility facets
A unified model

415

Table II.
IJLM to respond to changes (for the benefit of its customers and itself). The theme of logistics
19,3 and supply chain perspectives is external responsiveness to customers in a turbulent
environment. In addition to the emphasis on utilization of knowledge resources,
knowledge management (KM) definitions of agility go a step beyond the others by
explicitly recognizing the need for awareness or alertness as an ingredient of agility.
Definitions representing an information systems view also recognize the importance of
416 alertness from the standpoint of detecting market opportunities.
In all, researchers are still at a formative stage of defining factors and determinants
of agility (Giachetti et al., 2003). The present lack of consensus about the agility concept
makes it difficult to develop agility metrics. Of the sixteen studies summarized in
Table I, only four discuss possible measures of agility. The lack of validated agility
metrics impedes researchers attempts to conduct empirical studies to investigate
relationships between agility and other important variables related to business
performance (Sherehiy et al., 2007).

Prior studies on supply chain agility

The literature review discussed in this section underscores two research issues
regarding supply chain agility. The first is a definitional issue. There are few studies
that provide a formal definition of supply chain agility, let alone a universal agreement
on what the basic components of supply chain agility are. The second is a conceptual
model issue. Due to variations in the understanding of supply chain configurations,
different conceptual models are used to describe what comprises agile supply chains.
Dimension issues of supply chain agility. As discussed below, we find inconsistency
in the usage of flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness as dimensions of supply
chain agility.
Flexibility and adaptability. The terms agility, flexibility, and adaptability are often
used interchangeably (Giachetti et al., 2003). Global Logistics Research Team (1995)
views flexibility as a dimension of agility. Goldsby et al. (2006) explain that flexibility
is the key for a supply chain being able to provide agile response. Swafford et al. (2006)
posit that adaptability as one dimension of flexibility.
However, some studies claim that agility and flexibility are two distinct constructs.
For example, Swafford et al. (2006) view supply chain agility as an externally focused
capability that is derived from flexibilities in the supply chain processes, which are
viewed as internally focused competencies. This external and internal boundary
division also appears in studies distinguishing agility and adaptability as two distinct
concepts. For example, Katayama and Bennett (1999) consider agility as
responsiveness to customer requirements, while viewing adaptability as the ability
of a firms production system to adjust or modify its cost performance according to
demand.
In some studies, adaptability and agility are distinguished by the different level of
changes a supply chain tries to embrace. For example, Lee (2004) states that a supply
chain that has the ability to react quickly to unexpected or rapid shifts in supply and
demand is an agile supply chain, while considering an adaptable supply chain to be
one that can adjust its own supply chain design to meet structural shifts in markets
and modify supply networks to strategies, products, and technologies.
Responsiveness. The term responsiveness was first used by logistics scholars to
refer to some specific customer service practices. For example, La Londe et al. (1988)
emphasize error correction, after-sales service, and effective handling of information A unified model
requests as components of responsiveness. Davis and Manrodt (1996) use the term of supply chain
responsiveness for any handling of individual customer requests beyond traditional
service measures. agility
Since the mid-1990s with an increased focus on customer service quality, scholars
have begun to discuss responsiveness and agility as interchangeable terms and
conceptualize both as the ability in customer service to respond to customer demand. 417
As a result, components of the two constructs overlap. For example, Stank et al. (1996)
emphasize responsiveness as comprised of flexibility, provision of emergency services,
and ability to handle changes. Global Logistics Research Team (1995) asserts that three
aspects of agility are:
(1) accommodation the ability to respond to unique customer requests;
(2) flexibility the ability to adapt to unexpected circumstances; and
(3) relevancy the ability to maintain focus on the changing needs of customers.
Some scholars regard responsiveness as a more common term than agility
(Maltz and Maltz, 1998).

Overall, these conceptual inconsistencies on the relationships between responsiveness,

flexibility, adaptability, and agility are rooted in several basic questions about the
supply chain agility concept that have yet to be addressed: Is supply chain agility
externally focused or internally focused? Does supply chain agility manifest at
different levels, due to the fact that change is a multi-level concept? Is supply chain
agility a result of proactively initiating changes or reactively adapting to changes?
Conceptual models of supply chain agility. There are a few conceptual models that
endeavor to describe relationships among key agility facets. Here, our discussion of
each model focuses on identifying what aspects of supply chain agility it stresses, what
aspects it may overlook, and its comparative coverage of agility phenomena in a
supply chain.
As illustrated in Figure 1, Christopher et al. (2004) introduce a conceptual
framework based on a model originally developed by Harrison et al. (1999). This
framework aims to identify characteristics that a supply chain must have in order to be
agile. These characteristics are market sensitivity, network orientation, process
integration, and virtualness. Although not explicitly stated in this framework, we
observe that its four characteristics of supply chain agility are consistent with two key
dimensions: alertness and response capability. The alertness dimension of agility is
covered by sensing emerging market trends, listening to customers, and monitoring
real demand through daily point-of-sale data as a basis for identifying potential
market needs for new products (and the subsequent monitoring of market demand for
these products). The response-capability dimension is treated in terms of the other
three characteristics. It is covered by the ability to manage or orchestrate a complex
network and to exploit the core competencies and strengths of network partners. It also
includes process integration, involving collaboration in product design, inventory
management, and synchronized supply. Further, response capability involves the
notion of a virtual network, in which collaborative planning, knowledge sharing, and
visibility are apparent.
While the frameworks market sensitivity characteristic is a part of the alertness
dimension highlighted by the agility research in the knowledge management and
IJLM Shared information on real demand
Collaborative planning
19,3 End-to-end visibility

Virtual

418

Daily P.O.S. feedback Agile Co-managed inventory

Market supply Process
Capture emerging trends Collaborative product design
sensitive chain integration
Listen to consumers Synchronous supply

Network
based

Leverage partners' capabilities

Figure 1. Focus on core competencies
Agile Supply Chain Act as network orchestrator
Framework
Source: Christopher et al. (2004)

information system management disciplines, it is a considerably more restrictive

conception than what is covered by studies in those two domains. For instance,
alertness can encompass other facets of a supply chains environment aside from
macro market conditions and customer tastes: regulatory factors, socio-political
conditions, new candidates for inclusion in the supply chain, technological advances,
competitors moves, demographic trends, and so forth (Sambamurthy et al., 2003;
Holsapple and Jones, 2004). Moreover, the framework does not explicitly acknowledge
the role of alertness to events (opportunities/challenges) within the supply chain, which
is termed as the awareness of changes in episodes (Holsapple and Jones, 2005).
The frameworks characteristics of process integration, network orientation, and
virtualness appear to deal fairly extensively with a supply chains response
capabilities. However, the Christopher et al. (2004) framework does not address how
other agility facets such as timelines and flexibility are related with the supply chains
response capability or the supply chains alertness.
In contrast to the framework of Christopher et al. (2004), which is strategic for the
most part, Swafford et al. (2006) offer a framework that delves into some operational
aspects of agility. As illustrated in Figure 2, this framework contends that supply chain
agility is determined by the flexibility inherent in three supply chain processes:
procurement/sourcing, manufacturing, and distribution. These three processes
correspond to the source, make, and delivery processes devised in the Supply-Chain
Operations Reference (SCOR) model (Supply-Chain Council, 2004).
The association between flexibility and agility is treated as a competency-capability
relationship. Drawing on a strategy paradigm, whereby capabilities are externally
focused while competencies are internally focused and considered antecedents of
capabilities, this framework views supply chain agility as an externally focused
 Procurement/ A unified model
sourcing Range
H1a
Procurement/ of supply chain
sourcing Flexibility
Procurement/
sourcing Adaptability H2
agility
Manufacturing
Range
H1b
Manufacturing H3 Supply Chain 419
Flexibility Agility
Manufacturing
Adaptability

Distribution/ H4
logistics Range Distribution/
H1c logistics
Distribution/ Flexibility Figure 2.
logistics Adaptability Framework for Supply
Chain Agility
Source: Swafford et al. (2006)

capability that is derived from flexibility in the supply chain processes. Such flexibility
is, in turn, viewed as internally focused competency.
This framework yields several concerns. First, procurement, manufacturing, and
distribution are business functions not supply chain processes as asserted by the
authors. Instead of managing work activities as individual functions, supply chain
management processes integrate the activities between members of a supply chain
(Lambert et al., 2005). Second, the frameworks conception of agility appears to ignore
the role of alertness. That is, the framework takes a supply-side perspective by
seeming to assume that demand is known. However, a core principle of agility is to deal
with shocks and uncertainties, including demand risks. Third, the way the framework
is operationalized shows that the three areas of flexibility serve as gauges of agile
performance. However, the framework seems to assert that these three kinds of
flexibility comprise a competency that manifest in a capability called agility.
There also exist some conceptual frameworks of agile manufacturing, which supply
chain researchers apply to their studies (Agarwal et al., 2007). Here, we focus on two
such frameworks, introduced by Yusuf et al. (1999) and Sharifi and Zhang (2001).
Figure 3 shows the framework advocated by Yusuf et al. (1999). It indicates a
relationship between agility and the firms competitive bases. The bases are speed,
flexibility, innovation, proactivity, quality, and profitability. Agility is regarded as the

Agility

Competitive Bases

Figure 3.
Pathways/
Metrics Agility Atributes A Framework for
Obstacles
Achieving Agility
Source: Yusuf et al.(1999)
IJLM successful exploration of competitive bases through the integration of reconfigurable
19,3 resources and best practices in a knowledge-rich environment to provide
customer-driven products and services in a fast-changing market environment.
These bases are claimed to be the essential characteristics of agile manufacturing that
must be achieved in a synergistic fashion.
In addition, the framework integrates a set of attributes (practices), metrics, and
420 pathways (or obstacles) to achieving agility. The agility attributes include 32 practices,
spanning ten decision domains. For example, the quality domain has three related practices:
quality over product life, products with substantial value addition, and short development
cycle time. Specific metrics and obstacles are not provided as part of the framework.
Yusuf et al. (1999) do not identify the nature of relationships among the five elements in the
framework, specifically how they are related and how to leverage them to achieve agility.
Neither theoretical bases, nor empirical evidence, are furnished for this framework.
In their conceptual model of agility, Sharifi and Zhang (2001) describe relationships
among agility drivers, agility capabilities, and agility providers. As illustrated in
Figure 4, their idea is that agility is a result of integrating these three elements. Agility
drivers are changes and pressures from the business environment that necessitate a
firms search for new ways of running its business. Agility drivers can force a firm to
revise its current enterprise strategy, admit the need to become agile, and adopt an
agility strategy. From this standpoint, the model appears to adopt a reactive
perspective toward agility. Rather than a firm taking proactive action to respond to
changes, it is forced into action by external changes. The possibility of agility drivers
from internal changes is not considered.
The models agility capabilities of responsiveness, competency, quickness, and
flexibility are considered as strategic abilities to deal with changes. These agility
capabilities are expressed by the agility providers, which are derived from four
sources: organization, technology, people, and innovation. This framework treats the
four agility capabilities as parallels. In contrast, some studies on supply chain agility
indicate that quickness can be a measure of agility degree and flexibility is a type of
competency (Swafford et al., 2006).
Synopsis. Each of the foregoing frameworks/models exhibits some limitations in
characterizing the phenomenon of agility in supply chains due to the ambiguity of

Agility Agility
Agility Drivers Providers
Capabilities

Practices
Need to Become
Methods
Agile Responsiveness Tools

Strategic Intent to Competency

Organisation
Become Agile
Technology
Flexibility
People
Figure 4.
Agility Strategy Speed Innovation
A Conceptual Model of
Agility
Source: Sharifi and Zhang (2001)
agility as a conceptual construct. Moreover, a common trait shared by these A unified model
frameworks/models is that each is focused on a single level of supply chain agility: the of supply chain
frameworks of Yusuf et al. (1999) and Shariff and Zhang (2001) look at agility on an
organizational strategy level; Christopher et al. (2004) take an operational strategy agility
perspective; Swafford et al. (2006) view agility on an operational implementation level.
This is because researchers take different perspectives on supply chain
configurations/designs. Specifically, the supply chain configuration in Swafford et al. 421
(2006) is inventory-based, while the supply chain configuration in Christopher et al.
(2004) is information-based. Actually, the two perspectives are not contradictory to
each other and both have to be considered to have an agile supply chain.
The study by Yusuf et al. (1999) does note three aspects of agility related to different
levels of enterprise: elemental agility referring to individual resources people,
machinery, and management; micro-agility referring to an enterprise; macro-agility
referring to an inter-enterprise level. However, interrelationships among the three
levels are not discussed. Nor is there an indication of how to achieve agility at each
level.
We conclude that there is a need to develop a new general definition of agility that
subsumes the previous definitions with a clear relationship structure among all the key
agility facets. With such a definition, we are in a better position to develop a relatively
comprehensive model of supply chain agility, one that addresses all concepts specified
in the new agility definition, that is largely consistent with and unifies main ideas
portrayed by the foregoing frameworks/models, that recognizes levels of agility in
supply chains, and that indicates the nature of interrelationships among the levels.

A work-design model of supply chain agility

To address gaps and limitations in existing studies on the nature of supply chain
agility, we first develop a general definition of supply chain agility; then we further
develop the dimensions of supply chain agility, drawing on entrepreneurship and
strategic management literature. In addition, taking a work design perspective, we
contend that supply chain agility manifests at three design levels.

A general definition of supply chain agility

By synthesizing main themes that appear in the Table I definitions, and resolving some
oversights, we advance a unifying general-purpose definition of agility as follows:
Agility is the result of integrating an alertness to changes (opportunities/challenges) both
internal and environmental with a capability to use resources in responding
(proactively/reactively) to such changes, all in a timely, and flexible manner.
By itself, neither alertness nor response-ability is adequate for characterizing agility.
Both are required. Alertness needs to be timely, and flexible.. Response-ability needs to
be timely, and flexible.. Effectively integrating these two competences gives rise to
enhanced competitiveness via agility. The foregoing definition is inclusive, subsuming
the basic points that run through the definitions shown in Table I, without being
constrained to any particular application or taxonomy.
Now, we might ask how the integration and execution of alertness and
response-ability should be designed and conducted. While an answer lies beyond
the scope of this paper, we note that according to the knowledge chain theory, the roots
IJLM of agility are grounded in one or more of nine key KM activities (Holsapple and Singh,
19,3 2001). Any of these KM activities (or combinations thereof) has the potential of being a
competitive lever capable of being performed in ways that are not readily imitable by
competitors and yielding a degree of agility that enhances competitiveness.
Incidentally, aside from superior agility, the knowledge chain theory identifies three
other distinct avenues to competitiveness that can be pursued through the nine KM
422 activities: superior productivity, superior innovation, and superior reputation. In this
paper, we take care not to confound any of these three approaches to competitiveness
with that of agility. None of the three necessarily implies agility. Conversely, agility
does not necessarily imply the existence of productivity, innovation, or reputation.
Based on the general-purpose definition of agility, we define supply chain agility as
being the result of integrating a supply chains alertness to changes
(opportunities/challenges) both internal and environmental with the supply
chains capability to use resources in responding (proactively/reactively) to such
changes, all in a timely and flexible manner.
There are several highlights in this definition. First, we consider supply chain
agility to be a trait of participants joint, collaborative behaviors, rather than a process
that leads to this result. That is, supply chain processes can be more or less agile; they
make the supply chain more or less agile. Second, the concept of supply chain agility
has two major components:
(1) alertness to changes (opportunities/challenges) within the supply chain itself, as
well as within its surrounding environment as agility requires a timely
awareness of change (Dove, 2005; Holsapple and Jones, 2005); and
(2) response capability (Kumar and Motwani, 1995; Global Logistics Research
Team, 1995; Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Holsapple and Jones, 2005).

Third, supply chain agility includes both reactive and proactive modes. According to
Dove (1999, 2005), reactive agility comes from a defensive posture responding to a
situation that threatens viability, whereas proactive agility comes from efforts to probe
and explore uncharted territory perhaps working hand-in-hand with innovation.
Fourth, this concept of supply chain agility captures the time and flexibility to
measure the degree of supply chain agility Timeliness refers to the delivery of value at
an appropriate time. Notice that it is quite different from the notion of speed, which
typically refers how fast production happens. For example, just-in-time is not a
productivity concept, but an agility concept. Flexibility refers to the range of ways to
achieve success. Rather than being limited to a fixed set of predefined options, high
flexibility involves an active capacity and willingness to recognize new options, to
overcome inertia, and to accommodate unstructured situations (e.g., unanticipated
change). In essence, flexibility involves risk management through the cultivation of
options.

The construct of supply chain agility and its dimensions

Pushing forward from the definition of supply chain agility, we draw on ideas from
entrepreneurship and strategic management disciplines to further develop this
conception of agility. There are several reasons for doing so. First, opportunity
discovery is at the core of entrepreneurship studies, while means for developing
distinctive capabilities to respond to change is a major focus in strategic management
research. Second, some scholars have shown that understanding complementarily A unified model
between entrepreneurship and strategic management provides promising avenues for of supply chain
researchers examining how organizations sustain competitive advantages in turbulent
environments (Barney and Arikan, 2001; Ireland et al., 2003; Meyer and Heppard, 2000). agility
Third, as effective supply chain management has come to be regarded as major source
of competitive advantage for many firms, supply chain researchers have increasingly
applied theories and conceptual contributions from strategy to their research (Chang 423
and Grimm, 2006; Wisner, 2003).
In this direction, we advocate an integration of concepts from the two disciplines
into the two main dimensions of the agility construct: alertness to changes
(opportunities/disturbances) and responsive capabilities to changes. The alertness
dimension highlights agility as an opportunity-seeking capability from both external
and internal vantage points, while the response capability dimension emphasizes
agility in terms of change-enabling capabilities that are embedded in organizational
processes. Although distinct, the two dimensions of the agility construct are
complementary. In the literature, some researchers have pointed out that a precursor of
effective responses is timely awareness of change (Dove, 2005, Holsapple and Jones,
2005), which is alertness. Sambamurthy et al. (2003) argue that entrepreneurial
alertness is essential for the activation of response capabilities.
Two specific capabilities describe alertness: strategic foresight and systemic insight
(Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Strategic foresight is the ability to anticipate discontinuities
in the business environment and the marketplace, threats and opportunities in the
extended enterprise chain, and impending disruptive moves by competitors.
Understanding that not every opportunity is proper for action, organizations need to
be alert not only to opportunity options, but also to those alternatives that can be
exploited with their resources and competencies. Systemic insight refers to the
capability to consider interconnections between the organizations capabilities and
emerging market opportunities. Strategic foresight is correlated with systemic insight.
The dimension of responsive capabilities to opportunities/disturbances has four
subcomponents: value evaluation, coordination, learning and reconfiguration. Value
evaluation describes the capability to select actions, while coordination, learning and
reconfiguration are action-enabling capabilities.
The potential value of change varies among organizations in terms of relevance,
significance, and priority (Chung, 2006). To make good decisions as to which changes
deserve responses, organizations must be capable of assessing the value of
undertaking a response. The value evaluation component reflects an organizations
response capability in making decisions in pursuit of competitive advantages (Dove,
2005). Systemic alertness is correlated with value evaluation, because systemic insight
enables an appreciation of the feasibility of seizing opportunities and treating
competitive risks (Sambamurthy et al., 2003).
According to the theory of dynamic capabilities, an organizations capabilities to
enable change-responsive actions lie with their distinctive ways of coordination,
learning, and reconfiguration (Teece et al., 1997). Coordination refers to the ability to
manage dependencies among activities and resources (Maione and Crowston, 2001).
Incentive systems, culture, routines, or trust can be used as coordination mechanisms.
Learning includes the generation of new insights that have a potential to reshape
behavior (Huber, 1991). Reconfiguration refers to the ability to adjust an asset
IJLM structure, and to accomplish the necessary internal and external transformations
19,3 (Teece et al., 1997). The responsive capabilities are determined by the interplay of value
evaluation, coordination, learning, and reconfiguration.
The measures of agility degree (i.e. timeliness and flexibility) apply to each
subcomponent of the alertness and response-capability dimensions. For example, the
timeliness of coordination (one of the response capability components) refers to
424 appropriate timing in the management of dependencies, while flexibility of
coordination refers to the ranges of ways available to manage dependencies.

Levels of supply chain agility: a work-design perspective

For several reasons, we adopt a work-design approach to investigating the levels of
supply chain agility. First, a supply chain is a work-design system: it arranges a set of
activities that are undertaken by participating firms to develop, produce, and deliver
an output a product of some type. The product may be a physical good or a service,
an informational good or service, or a combination of these. Second, as the supply chain
agility definition contends, the core dimensions of agility are alertness and response
capability. Dynamic response capabilities are embedded in work routines (Teece et al.,
1997). Supply chain agility derives from the way work routines are designed.
Third, agility is a criterion for gauging a supply chains effectiveness (Ketchen and
Hult, 2007). As Drucker (1991) points out, effectiveness is concerned with how to get
right things done in right ways. At least part of the solution for getting the right
things done right lies in work design. Fourth, the driving force behind the need for
agility is change. Nowadays, work itself has become a major source of change due to
the fact that work has become increasingly knowledge intensive and geographically
dispersed (Friedman, 2005). Supply chain agility becomes closely associated with how
a global arrangement of supply chain talent collaborates to realize new opportunities
for beneficially arranging work (who does what, when, where, and how).
As Figure 5 illustrates, the new work-design model of supply chain agility contends
that a work-design system has three levels: an episodic design level, operational design
level, and strategic design level. As a supply chain works to accomplish a particular
task, it engages in one or more knowledge-based work episodes. We adopt the definition

Strategic Design Agility

Alertness
Response Capability

Operational Design Agility

Supply Chain Alertness
Agility Response Capability

Episodic Design Agility

Figure 5.
A Work-Design Model of
Supply Chain Agility
Alertness
Response Capability
Note: The solid arrow indicates top-down influence effects, while dashed
arrow indicates bottom-up effects
posed by (Frentz and Farrell, 1976): an episode is a rule-conforming sequence of A unified model
symbolic acts generated by two or more actors who are collectively oriented toward of supply chain
emergent goals (p. 336). A supply chains work episodes may unfold simultaneously or
asynchronously, and each may span multiple geographic locations. In these episodes, agility
work is not characterized by repetitive and linear workflows; instead, work gets done
through a complex web of interactions among knowledge workers. A knowledge worker
could be a human individual, an organization, or a computer system (Holsapple 1995). 425
These knowledge workers in a work episode can be geographically dispersed, and they
collaborate by sharing knowledge to fulfill emergent tasks.
The knowledge workers participating in a specific work episode are alert to
opportunities or challenges (due to changing environmental or internal conditions) for
task adjustments. In the course of using existing or acquired resources to accomplish a
task, they integrate their alertness capability with their capabilities for response
(proactively/reactively) to execute the episodic task in a timely and flexible manner.
Where there is episodic agility, the execution of a work episode does not demand rigid
adherence to some work design that has been specified at the operational level, but
rather is subject to design modification (or even substitution) in response to conditions
local to that particular episode. That is, the supply chain tends to operate at the
episodic edge in order to reap the benefit of agility at this level.
Operational design is concerned with ways in which work episodes are initiated,
performed, and terminated in reaction or pro-action to changes in demand and supply.
For example, an efficient supply chain focusing on mass-production and a responsive
supply chain highlighting mass-customization represent two different operational
designs. Agility at this level is the result of integrating a supply chains alertness to
opportunities and challenges of demand/supply (environmental/internal) changes with
the supply chains capability to respond (proactively or reactively) to these changes by
devising new templates for governing work at the episodic level, by allocating
resources to work being done at the episodic level, by guiding the timing and duration
of work episodes all in a timely, and flexible manner (i.e. yielding high agility at the
operational work-design level).
The strategic level of work design is concerned with structuring and governing
operational work design, so that the latter is aligned with the organizations mission
and its strategy for accomplishing that mission. Such alignment is important for being
able to create value by exploiting business opportunities, maintaining congruence with
a turbulent environment, sustaining competitiveness, and ultimately surviving. Agility
at the strategic level of work design is the result of integrating a supply chains
alertness to opportunities and challenges both internal and environmental, and
particularly in a macro sense with the supply chains capability to respond
(proactively or reactively) to these changes by designing new kinds of operational
work-design systems or reshaping existing operational work-design systems all in a
timely, and flexible manner (realizing high strategic design agility).
Examples in a study by Christopher and Towill (2001) illustrate the difference
between operational design agility and episodic design agility. They conceive three
distinct work designs. The first embraces the Pareto(80/20) rule, suggesting that
manufacturing facilities be designed so that 20 per cent of fast-moving products can be
produced in a lean manner, and the remaining 80 per cent should be produced in an
agile and less anticipatory manner. The second involves having outside temporary
IJLM capacity as an agile component for responding to changes of peak seasons. The third
19,3 calls for form postponement, which refers to delaying the final form of a product until
an order is received from customers. These work designs treat agility as work
arrangements that allow for more options to respond flexibly to unpredictable
customer needs at a task level.
This is agility at an episodic level. It cannot answer questions such as when the 80/20
426 per cent ratio should be adjusted to 70/30 per cent; where the product differentiation must
occur for the form postponement approach; how an organization can quickly adapt its
production system from a mixed model to form postponement. These are questions
addressed at a higher level, ideally in a way that yields operational design agility.
Operational design involves the design of various work patterns that are then available for
adoption in the execution of work episodes that recognize and respond to task-level
changes (e.g., an urgent order and/or a disruption in supply) in timely and flexible ways.
For instance, the appropriate adoption of one of the three work designs (each of which can
be viewed as an episodic designs) results in a high degree of operational design agility.
For a supply chain, if the degree of operational design agility is reflected in the timely
flexibility of its reconfiguration ability in developing products characterized by
numerous options, sizes, and colors, the timely flexibility in its coordination ability to
increase or decrease aggregate production in response to customer demand, and the
timely flexibility in its learning ability to get close to customer (Vickery et al., 1999), then
the degree of strategic design agility is gauged by the timely flexibility of a strategic
design system in shaping a new or reshaping an existing operational design system.
Consider Fishers (1997) paradigm of responsive supply chains and efficient supply
chains as two operational design systems that differ in terms of structure, coordination,
and control mechanisms. Strategic design agility incorporates the organizations
timely introduction of responsive supply chain capability, such as the proactivity to
address emerging customer needs through innovative products despite the
organizations prior success with its efficient supply chain.
Supply chain agility derives from the three levels of work design. We postulate that
a supply chains agility is influenced by or predicted by the nature of its work design
efforts at three levels by its strategic design agility, operational design agility, and
episodic design agility. We define these as follows:
.
Strategic design agility: the result of integrating a supply chains alertness to
changes (opportunities/challenges) both internal and environmental with the
supply chains capability to respond (proactively/reactively) to these changes by
shaping new kinds of operational systems or reshaping existing operational
systems, all in a timely, and flexible manner.
.
Operational design agility: the result of integrating a supply chains alertness to
supply/demand changes (opportunities/challenges) with the supply chains
capability to respond (proactively/reactively) to such changes by engaging in
new kinds of work episodes or adjusting existing kinds of work episodes, all in a
timely, and flexible manner.
.
Episodic design agility: the result of integrating a supply chains alertness to task
changes (opportunities/challenges) with the supply chains capability to respond
(proactively/reactively) to such changes by use existing or acquired resources, all
in a timely, and flexible manner.
As indicated by Figure 5, supply chain agility is the result of interplay of agility in the A unified model
three levels of work design. A profound understanding of the relationships among
episodic design agility, operational design agility, and strategic design agility is the
of supply chain
key to address not only how to respond to changes, but also how to initiate changes so agility
as to get the right work done in an appropriately agile way. Observe that strategic
design agility influences operational design agility, and operational design agility
affects episodic design agility. It can also happen that episodic design agility 427
aggregates to force or yield operational design agility, which can propel agility at a
strategic level of work design.
The key attributes of agility, as identified by the general-purpose definition given
earlier, repeat at every hierarchic level contributing to a supply chains overall agility.
Specifically, each level involves two key dimensions: alertness and response capability.
Timeliness and flexibility on each dimension measure the degree of agility at any level.

Supply chain agility, agile performance, and competitiveness: a research

framework
Researchers suggest that a firms supply chain agility is a critical factor affecting its
overall global competitiveness (Lee, 2004; Swafford et al., 2006). However, how supply
chain agility is linked to a firms competitiveness is not clearly addressed theoretically.
This is mostly due to prior conceptual ambiguity of supply chain agility.
Our unifying conceptualization of supply chain agility from a work-design perspective
furnishes a foundation for systematic investigation of relationships between a firms
supply chain agility and its competitiveness. Figure 6 depicts a research framework that
conveys a theoretical linkage of capability-performance-competitiveness. Specifically, this
framework indicates that a supply chains agile performance is determined by episodic
design agility, which is influenced by operational design agility and strategic design
agility. A supply chains agile performance mediates the relationship between episodic
design agility and competitiveness. This framework leads to some specific propositions
about construct relationships that have been little studied.

Relationships among levels of supply chain agility

As we discussed in the previous section, the relationships among the three levels of
design agility are bi-directional. Figure 5 displays the top-down (strategic-operational
episodic) and bottom-up (episodic-operational-strategic) effects among these three
levels of agility. In Figure 6, strategic design agility, operational design agility and
episodic agility are therefore portrayed as correlated with each other.
Creating strategic design agility allows firms to proactively tailor their supply chains to
opportunities or challenges. An agile strategic design enables organizations to develop
a meaningful understanding of changes in markets and devise new work practices.

Strategic Design P3
Agility P5
P4
Episodic Design Supply Chain Firm
P1 Agility Agile Performance Competitiveness
Figure 6.
Operational P2 Linking Supply Chain
Design Agility Agility to Competitiveness
IJLM As a result, we expect operational design agility to be enhanced. Procter and
19,3 Gamble (P&G) provides a good example of this dynamic between strategic and
operational design agility with its Gillette razor business. Gillette demonstrated strong
operational capabilities with its radio frequency identification (RFID) technology that
supported multi-echelon inventory optimization. P&G leveraged this expertise
throughout it supply chain operations to provide for enhanced strategic capabilities,
428 allowing its supply chains to respond to supply and demand changes better by
tracking products and applying analytics to the data it receives from retailers
(Behrenbeck et al., 2007). The corporate strategy supported the divisional development
and once the operational capability proved competent, the capability was applied
strategically to a broader scope of the companys business. In this way, it can be
recognized that the strategic design provides resources and a supporting environment
for the operational design. Capabilities in operational design then reinforce the strategic
agility.
We find empirical support from the literature on the nature of the linkage between
operational design agility and episodic design agility. Swafford et al. (2006) show that
flexibility of supply chain management processes processes that account for
operational design agility in our framework directly and positively impacts the
quickness with which work activities (such as product development, manufacturing,
and delivery) are arranged and managed at the episodic design level.
The correlative relationships among the three levels of design agility can also be
explained from a social learning perspective. Social learning theory suggests that
people can learn by observing the behavior of others and the outcomes of those
behaviors (Bandura, 2002). We argue that employees at different supply chain
organizational levels can learn to be agile by observing, learning, and imitating agile
behaviors from each other within and across levels. As a result, an integrated agile
climate will be created. A study by Hult et al. (2002) supports this argument by
showing that culture competitiveness has a positive effect on the order fulfillment cycle
time within supply chains. The authors define this concept of culture competitiveness
as the degree to which supply chains are predisposed to detect and fill gaps between
what the market desires and what is currently offered. This predisposition can
arise when supply chain participants share values and beliefs in engaging new work
designs within supply chains through entrepreneurial, innovative, and learning ways.
Thus, we offer the following three propositions regarding the dyadic interrelationships
among strategic, operational, and episodic work design agility:
P1. Strategic design agility is positively associated with operational design agility.
P2. Operational design agility is positively associated with episodic design agility.
P3. Strategic design agility is positively associated with episodic design agility.

The mediating role of agile performance

Specific work activities responding to emergent challenges and opportunities are
implemented in work episodes. Though strategic and operational work design provide
the intent for agility in detecting changes in the environment and providing proactive
or reactive response, it is at the episodic level of work the tasks themselves where
intent transcends into action. We contend that work-level, episodic agility has a direct
positive relationship with the agility of a firms performance. A few empirical studies A unified model
imply the possibility of this relationship. For example, Liu et al. (2006) show that the of supply chain
flexibility of work forces in fulfilling work tasks in work episodes has a significant
impact on an organizations mass customization performance, which is a manifestation agility
of agile performance. Thus:
P4. Episodic design agility has a direct positive relationship with the firms agile
performance. 429
A link between a firms agile performance and the firm competitiveness has been
suggested conceptually in prior studies (Ketchen and Hult 2006; Giachetti et al., 2003;
Yusuf et al., 2003; Vokurka et al., 2002; Sharifi and Zhang, 2001; Goldman et al., 1995).
For example, Goldman et al. (1995) state that organizations demonstrating agile
performance, which is dynamic, context-specific, aggressively change-embracing, and
growth-oriented, succeed in gaining profits, market share, and customers. Beyond this,
there is empirical evidence for this linkage. For example, in the study by Goldsby and
Stank (2000), agile performance is a necessity for organizations to excel along an array
competitive priorities cost, quality, speed, and flexibility. Lee (2004) uses real cases
to show that agile supply chains provide companies with competitive advantages.
Therefore, we advance the following proposition:
P5. A firms agile performance is positively related with its competitiveness.

Conclusion and future research

To be competitive, firms must realize that competition is evolving from a
firm-versus-firm orientation to supply chain-versus-supply chain (Christopher, 1997).
To be successful in a turbulent environment, organizations must elevate agility across
entire supply chains. Fundamental to this achievement is recognition of the
components of supply chain agility. Much has been done on attributes of agile
organizations. However, agility as a distinct concept has remained somewhat
ambiguous, let alone the concept of supply chain agility. In addition to the key
elements of agility, it has remained unclear how to make an entire supply chain agile at
every work-design level. These issues underlying supply chain agility form an
appropriate area to research, as firms today try to improve the agility of their supply
chains performance in the interest of greater competitiveness.
This study begins to address these issues by identifying key elements of
supply chain agility. A review of agility definitions is included. The definitions
tend to be limited to describing one aspect of agility, such as responsiveness.
The definition of supply chain agility introduced here conceives of agility in
terms of two key dimensions (alertness and response capability), two directions
(internal and environmental), two modes (reactive and proactive), and two measures of
the degree of agility (timeliness and flexibility).
These attributes of supply chain agility can pervade every level of work design In
the interest of overall supply chain agility, the model advanced in Figure 5 indicates
that achieving agility at each of these levels is important. The model identifies agility
at three work-design levels: strategic design agility, operational design agility, and
episodic design agility. Strategic design agility results from staying alert (timely and
flexible) to internal and environmental changes (opportunities/challenges) and the
IJLM capability of responding by shaping new operational systems or reshaping existing
19,3 operational systems in a timely and flexible manner. Operational design agility results
from alertness to supply/demand changes (timely and flexible) and the capability to
engage in new types of work episodes or adjust existing kinds of work episodes in
responding to changes in a timely and flexible manner. Episodic design agility is the
result of alertness (timely and flexible) within a work episode to task changes and the
430 capability to use existing resources in responding to internal and environmental
changes in a timely and flexible manner.
This work-design view of supply chain agility makes several contributions. First,
this conceptual model of supply chain agility is theory-driven and can be applied to
any supply chain setting. It sharpens SCM researchers understanding of parameters of
supply chain agility. Second, Table III provides a taxonomy of supply chain agility,
built on a combination of dimensions and hierarchic levels. Practitioners can use this
taxonomy as a checklist to identify candidate areas for improving agility. Third,
researchers can use this taxonomy to find future research directions. Prospective
research questions include:
.
How can each level be operationalized? What specific items can be used to
measure key elements across levels? How can efforts across levels be
coordinated?
.
How do the measures relate to each other? Can improvements in one (e.g.,
timelines at the strategic design level) affect improvements in another one (e.g.,
timeliness at the operational design level)?
.
How does supply chain agility transfer from one entity to another in the supply
chain? Does agility beget agility? Does agility arise out of need?
.
Is the most agile supply chain the one with the most agile entities (i.e. is agility
additive across companies in the supply chain)?
.
What particular aspects of firm competitiveness benefit most from agile
performance?

To begin the process of building a theory for supply chain agility, this study describes
a research framework (see Figure 6), linking supply chain agility to firm
competitiveness. This research framework establishes a new research platform to
investigate how firms create and sustain competitive advantages in turbulent
environment via agile work design in their supply chain network. From this
framework, researchers can proceed through an iterative research cycle of explanatory
frameworks tested against reality and refined, as studies build upon one another. In
this study, we advance five propositions for this research framework. Empirical
research is needed to attain deeper insights into these propositions in various supply

Strategic design level Operational design level Episodic design level

Dimension Timeliness Flexibility Timeliness Flexibility Timeliness Flexibility
Table III.
Taxonomy of supply Alertness
chain agility Response capability
chain settings. Case and field studies could be used to generate support for the agility A unified model
dimensions identified here, and perhaps identify new components. At the same time, of supply chain
performance measures should be identified, and survey data or simulation could be
used to evaluate the success of supply chain agility in improving agile performance, agility
hence a firms competitiveness.

431
References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2007), Modeling agility of supply, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-57.
Bandura, A. (2002), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Sage, London.
Barney, J.B. and Arikan, A.M. (2001), The Resource-based View: Origins and Implications,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 124-88.
Behrenbeck, K., Thonemann, U. and Merschmann, U. (2007), Soft secrets of supply chain
success, International Commerce Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-7.
Bowersox, D.J. (1995), World Class Logistics: The Challenge of Managing Continuous Change,
Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Burgess, T.F. (1994), Making the leap to agility: defining and achieving agile manufacturing
through business process redesign and business network redesign, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 23-34.
Cao, Q. and Dowlatshahi, S. (2005), The impact of alignment between virtual enterprise and
information technology on business performance in an agile manufacturing environment,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23, pp. 531-50.
Chang, L. and Grimm, C.M. (2006), The application of empirical strategic management research
to supply chain management, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 1-56.
Christopher, M. (1997), The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2001), An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 235-46.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2002), Developing market specific supply chain strategies,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Christopher, M., Lowson, R. and Peck, H. (2004), Creating agile supply chains in the fashion
industry, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 367-76.
Chung, C.H. (2006), Decision support systems for change management, International Journal of
Information Systems and Change Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36-47.
Davis, F.W. and Manrodt, K.B. (1996), Customer Responsive Management: The Flexible
Advantage, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
DeVor, R., Graves, R. and Mills, J.J. (1997), Agile manufacturing research: accomplishments and
opportunities, IIE Transactions, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 813-23.
Dove, R. (1994), Tools for analyzing and constructing agility, Proceedings of the Third Annual
Agility Forum Conference/Workshop, Austin, TX.
Dove, R. (1999), Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
IJLM Dove, R. (2005), Agile enterprise cornerstones: knowledge, values, and response ability, in
Baskerville, R. (Ed.), Business Agility and Information Technology Diffusion, Springer,
19,3 Berlin.
Drucker, P.F. (1991), The new productivity challenge, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 69-79.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), What is the right supply chain for your product, Harvard Business Review,
432 Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-16.
Frayret, J.M. et al., (2001), A network approach to operate agile manufacturing systems,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 74 Nos 1-3, pp. 239-59.
Frentz, T.S. and Farrell, T.B. (1976), Language-action: a paradigm for communication,
Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 333-49.
Friedman, T.L. (2005), The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux, New York, NY.
Giachetti, R.E. et al., (2003), Analysis of the structural measures of flexibility and agility using a
measurement theoretical framework, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Global Logistics Research Team (1995), World Class Logistics: The Challenge of Managing
Continuous Change, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N. and Preiss, K. (1995), Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Goldsby, T.J. and Stank, T.P. (2000), World class logistics performance and environmentally
responsible logistics practices, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 187-208.
Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply chain
strategies, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 57.
Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (1999), Creating the Agile Supply Chain, Institute of Logistics &
Transport, London.
Holsapple, C. and Jin, H. (2007), Connecting some dots: e-commerce, supply chains, and
collaborative decision making, Decision Line, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 14-21.
Holsapple, C. and Jones, K. (2005), Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-31.
Holsapple, C. and Jones, K. (2004), Exploring primary activites of the knowledge chain,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 155-74.
Holsapple, C.W. and Singh, M. (2001), The knowledge chain model: activity for
competitiveness, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 20, pp. 77-98.
Holsapple, C. and Whinston, A. (1987), A knowledge-based organizations, The Information
Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 77-90.
Huber, G.P. (1991), Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures,
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Nichols, E.L. (2002), An examination of cultural competitiveness
and order fulfillment cycle time within supply chains, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 577-86.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Sirmon, D.G. (2003), A model of strategic entrepreneurship:
the construct and its dimensions, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, p. 963.
Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1999), Agility, adaptability and leanness: a comparison of
concepts and a study of practice, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 60,
pp. 43-51.
Ketchen, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2007), Bridging organization theory and supply chain A unified model
management: the case of best value supply chains, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 573-80. of supply chain
Kidd, P.T. (1994), Agile Manufacturing-Forging New Frontiers, Addison-Wesley Longman agility
Publishing, Boston, MA.
Kumar, A. and Motwani, J. (1995), A methodology for assessing time-based competitive
advantage of manufacturing firms, International Journal of Operations & Production 433
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 36-53.
Kusiak, A. and He, D.W. (1997), Design for agile assembly: an operational perspective,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 157-78.
La Londe, B.J., Cooper, M.C. and Noordewier, T.G. (1988), Customer Service: A Management
Perspective, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Lambert, D.M., Garca-Dastugue, S.J. and Croxton, K.L. (2005), An evaluation of
process-oriented supply chain management frameworks, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-52.
Lee, H.L. (2004), The triple-A supply chain, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, p. 102.
Liu, G.J., Shah, R. and Schroeder, R.G. (2006), Linking work design to mass customization:
a sociotechnical systems perspective, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 519-45.
Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K. (2001), The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Malwah, NJ.
Maltz, A. and Maltz, E. (1998), Customer service in the distributor channel: empirical findings,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-29.
Meyer, G.D. and Heppard, K.A. (2000), Entrepreneurial Strategies: the Dominant logic of
Entrepreneurship, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-22.
Nagel, R. and Dove, R. (1991), 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy: An Industry Led
View of Agile Manufacturing, Vol. 1, Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), Leagility: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2, pp. 107-18.
OConnor, L. (1994), Agile manufacturing in a responsive factory, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 116 No. 7, pp. 54-7.
Pandiarajan, V. and Patun, R. (1994), Agile manufacturing initiatives at concurrent technologies
corp, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 46-9.
Quinn, R.D. et al., (1997), An agile manufacturing workcell design, IIE Transactions, Vol. 29
No. 10, pp. 901-9.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003), Shaping agility through digital options:
reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-63.
Sarkis, J. (2001), Benchmarking for agility, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 88-107.
Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z. (2001), Agile manufacturing in practice application of a
methodology, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos
5-6, pp. 772-94.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), A review of enterprise agility: concepts,
frameworks, and attributes, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 445-60.
IJLM Sinha, K.K. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2005), Designing work within and between organizations,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 389-408.
19,3 Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J. and Ellinger, A.E. (1996), Information exchange, responsiveness and
logistics provider performance, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Supply Chain Council (2004), The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model, available
434 at: www.supply-chain.org
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), The antecedents of supply chain agility of a
firm: scale development and model testing, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 170-88.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capability and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Tracy, M.J. et al., (1994), Achieving agile manufacturing: part II, Automotive Engineering,
Vol. 102 No. 12, pp. 13-17.
van Hoek, R.I. (1998), Logistics and virtual integration:postponement, outsourcing, and the flow
of information, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 508-23.
van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), Measuring agile capabilities in the
supply chain, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos
1-2, pp. 126-47.
Vickery, S., Calantone, R. and Droge, C. (1999), Supply chain flexibility: an empirical study, The
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 16-24.
Vokurka, R.J., Zank, G.M. and Lund, C.M. (2002), Improving competitiveness through supply
chain management: a cumulative improvement approach, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Wisner, J.D. (2003), A structural equation model of supply chain management strategies and
firm performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Adeleye, E.O. and Sivayoganathan, K. (2003), Volume flexibility: the agile
manufacturing conundrum, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, p. 613.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (1999), Agile manufacturing: the drivers,
concepts and attributes, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2,
pp. 33-43.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000), A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 496-512.

About the authors

Xun Li is a PhD student of Decision Science and Information Systems in the Gatton College of
Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky. Her current research interests include
work design in supply chains, supply chain agility, the effects of inter-organizational systems on
supply chain performance, and privacy/security issues in information sharing. Her teaching
activities include quantitative analysis in operation management, supply chain management,
and IT applications in business.
Chen Chung is Professor of Decision Science and Information Systems and Gatton Endowed
Professor at Gatton College of Business and Economics of University of Kentucky. He received
his PhD in production and operations management from the Ohio State University. He currently
serves as the Production and Operations Management Area Editor of the International Journal of
Management Theory and Practice. He also serves on the Editorial Board of the International
Journal of Information Systems and Change Management. His current research interests include
Operations Strategy and the philosophy of decision and management sciences. He has published A unified model
in Journal of Operations Management, Decision Sciences, Production and Operations
Management, International Journal of Production Research, European Journal of Operations of supply chain
Research, OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Sciences, Computer and Operation agility
Research, Computer and Industrial Engineering, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, among
others.
Thomas J. Goldsby is Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management at the University of
Kentucky. Dr Goldsbys research interests focus on logistics customer service, supply chain 435
integration, and the theory and practice of lean and agile supply chain strategies. He has
published several articles in academic and professional journals and serves as a frequent speaker
at academic conferences, executive education seminars, and professional meetings. He is
co-author of Lean Six Sigma Logistics: Strategic Development to Operational Success (J. Ross
Publishing, 2005) and a research associate of the Global Supply Chain Forum at The Ohio State
University. He has received recognitions for excellence in teaching at Iowa State University, The
Ohio State University, and the University of Kentucky. Thomas J. Goldsby is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: goldsby.1@uky.edu.
Clyde W. Holsapple holds the Rosenthal Endowed Chair in MIS at the University of
Kentucky. He has authored over 100 research articles in journals including Decision Support
Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems, Group Decision and Negotiation, Decision
Sciences, Operations Research, Journal of Operations Management, Organization Science,
Communications of the ACM, Journal of American Society for Information Science and
Technology. His books include Foundations of Decision Support Systems, Handbook on Decision
Support Systems, and Handbook on Knowledge Management. He has served as Editor-in-Chief of
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce; Area Editor of Decision Support
Systems, INFORMS Journal on Computing; Associate Editor of Management Science.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints