IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v3y2021i2ne62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenario planning as a strategy process to foster supply chain adaptability: theoretical framework and longitudinal case

Author

Listed:
  • Shardul Sharad Phadnis
  • Inga‐Lena Darkow

Abstract

Despite the decades long use of scenario planning to formulate corporate strategies, its application for making long‐term decisions in operational settings is limited. We present a theoretical model explaining how scenario planning can help address an important and intractable issue in operations and supply chain management (OSCM): supply chain adaptability. The OSCM literature describes what type of flexibility enables supply chain adaptability, but remains largely silent on how the right flexibility is embedded and enacted in supply chains. Building on the attention‐based view, we outline the antecedents and deterrents of supply chain adaptability. We theorize how “excessive focus on operational exploitation” and “operations‐focused cognition” deter supply chain adaptability, and how scenario planning serves as a strategy process to overcome the deterrents. We illustrate the theoretical model with a longitudinal industry–academia collaborative field study that used scenario planning to formulate, implement, and adapt a chemical company's supply chain strategy over 7 years in Asia's dynamic and unpredictable business environment. We hope that this study at the intersection of foresight studies and OSCM encourages scholarly collaboration between these two largely disparate communities, and provides a foundation for future research amid the growing importance of managing supply chains in unpredictable business environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Shardul Sharad Phadnis & Inga‐Lena Darkow, 2021. "Scenario planning as a strategy process to foster supply chain adaptability: theoretical framework and longitudinal case," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:3:y:2021:i:2:n:e62
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.62
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.62?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc H. Anderson & Mary L. Nichols, 2007. "Information Gathering and Changes in Threat and Opportunity Perceptions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 367-387, May.
    2. Richard A. D'Aveni & Giovanni Battista Dagnino & Ken G. Smith, 2010. "The age of temporary advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(13), pages 1371-1385, December.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Nathan R. Furr & Christopher B. Bingham, 2010. "CROSSROADS---Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1263-1273, December.
    5. George Wright & George Cairns, 2020. "Does the facilitator of a scenario development activity need substantive knowledge of the focal topic?," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
    6. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    7. Pamela S. Barr, 1998. "Adapting to Unfamiliar Environmental Events: A Look at the Evolution of Interpretation and Its Role in Strategic Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(6), pages 644-669, December.
    8. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    9. William Ocasio & Tomi Laamanen & Eero Vaara, 2018. "Communication and Attention Dynamics : an Attention-Based View of Strategic Change," Post-Print hal-02312047, HAL.
    10. Phadnis, Shardul & Caplice, Chris & Singh, Mahender & Sheffi, Yossi, 2014. "Axiomatic foundation and a structured process for developing firm-specific Intuitive Logics scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 122-139.
    11. Claus Rerup, 2009. "Attentional Triangulation: Learning from Unexpected Rare Crises," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 876-893, October.
    12. Dominik Eckstein & Matthias Goellner & Constantin Blome & Michael Henke, 2015. "The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(10), pages 3028-3046, May.
    13. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & Lenos Trigeorgis & Jeffrey J. Reuer, 2017. "Real options theory in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 42-63, January.
    14. Schoemaker, Paul J.H. & Day, George S. & Snyder, Scott A., 2013. "Integrating organizational networks, weak signals, strategic radars and scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 815-824.
    15. H. Igor Ansoff, 1980. "Strategic issue management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 131-148, April.
    16. Sarah Kaplan, 2011. "Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a Look to the Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 665-695, May.
    17. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    18. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    19. Shardul Phadnis & Chris Caplice & Yossi Sheffi & Mahender Singh, 2015. "Effect of scenario planning on field experts' judgment of long-range investment decisions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(9), pages 1401-1411, September.
    20. Robert M. Grant, 2003. "Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 491-517, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shardul Sharad Phadnis, 2021. "Advancing scenario planning theory: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack, 2021," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3-4), September.
    2. John J. Oliver, 2023. "Scenario planning: Reflecting on cases of actionable knowledge," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    3. David J. Grüning, 2022. "Synthesis of human and artificial intelligence: Review of “How to stay smart in a smart world: Why human intelligence still beats algorithms” by Gerd Gigerenzer," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3-4), September.
    4. Megan M. Crawford & Eoin Plant‐O'Toole, 2023. "A review of strategic planning for dynamic supply chains: Preparing for uncertainty using scenarios," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2020. "Analogical reasoning, cognition, and the response to technological change: Lessons from mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    2. Riccardo Vecchiato & Giampiero Favato & Francesco di Maddaloni & Hang Do, 2020. "Foresight, cognition, and long‐term performance: Insights from the automotive industry and opportunities for future research," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), March.
    3. John Joseph & Alex J. Wilson, 2018. "The growth of the firm: An attention‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1779-1800, June.
    4. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    5. Siebelink, Remco & Hofman, Erwin & Halman, Johannes I.M. & Nee, Ingo, 2021. "Roadmapping: (Missed) opportunities to overcome strategic challenges," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 501-512.
    6. Daniel Albert & Stephan Billinger, 2024. "Reproducing and Extending Experiments in Behavioral Strategy with Large Language Models," Papers 2410.06932, arXiv.org.
    7. Christoph Grimpe & Wolfgang Sofka & Andreas P. Distel, 2022. "SME participation in research grant consortia—the emergence of coordinated attention in collaborative innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1567-1592, December.
    8. Donal Crilly & Pamela Sloan, 2014. "Autonomy or Control? Organizational Architecture and Corporate Attention to Stakeholders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 339-355, April.
    9. Tomi Laamanen, 2019. "Dynamic attention-based view of corporate headquarters in MNCs," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Shardul S. Phadnis, 2019. "Effectiveness of Delphi‐ and scenario planning‐like processes in enabling organizational adaptation: A simulation‐based comparison," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    11. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    12. Juha-Antti Lamberg & Jukka Luoma, 2021. "Ideology in Vicarious Learning–Related Communication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 708-730, May.
    13. Markku V. J. Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2013. "Top Management’s Attention to Discontinuous Technological Change: Corporate Venture Capital as an Alert Mechanism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 926-947, June.
    14. Richard Whittington, 2018. "Greatness Takes Practice: On Practice Theory’s Relevance to “Great Strategy”," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 343-351, March.
    15. Sreejith Kumar Krishnakumar & Rajiv Kishore & Nallan C. Suresh, 2022. "Expansive or focused attention? An exploration–exploitation perspective on e‐Business systems and firm performance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(5), pages 2038-2066, May.
    16. Buyl, Tine & Boone, Christophe & Wade, James B., 2015. "Non-CEO executive mobility: The impact of poor firm performance and TMT attention," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 257-267.
    17. Andrews, Daniel S. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Ambos, Tina & Haensel, Kira, 2022. "The attention-based view and the multinational corporation: Review and research agenda," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(2).
    18. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    20. Christopher Kurzhals & Lorenz Graf‐Vlachy & Andreas König, 2020. "Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 437-464, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:3:y:2021:i:2:n:e62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.