Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain

Jorieke H. M. Manders a,n, Marjolein C. J. Caniëls b, Paul W. Th. Ghijsen b
a
Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open University and School of Technology and Logistics, Fontys University of Applied Sciences,
Tegelseweg 255, 5912 BG Venlo, The Netherlands
b
Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open University, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Empirical studies about supply chain flexibility have mainly focused on one (manufacturing) company,
Received 6 January 2016 occasionally incorporating the adjoining view from a supplier, distributor, or retailer. The present paper
Received in revised form argues that a dyadic perspective is not sufficient and that an integrated perspective is required. In-depth
30 May 2016
case study data was collected and analyzed. The data covers eight organizations in a fast-moving con-
Accepted 1 June 2016
sumer goods (FMCG) food supply chain, including suppliers, the main manufacturer, the logistics service
Available online 1 July 2016
provider, and retailers. Drawing on network theory and stakeholder theory, the study analyzed how
Keywords: these eight organizations experience flexibility across the supply chain. The findings show that each
Supply chain flexibility chain member implements flexibility to fulfill the direct needs of the next-tier chain member. Organi-
Flexibility dimensions
zations at different positions in the supply chain prioritize other flexibilities. There is no support for
Goals
overall supply chain flexibility.
Network theory
Stakeholder theory & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
FMCG food supply chain

1. Introduction Most empirical studies have focused on a single manufacturing

Supply chain flexibility is crucial in today's business environ-
ment, which is characterized by complexity, continuous change,
and uncertainty. Organizations must be flexible to cope with glo-
balization, technological change and innovation, as well as chan-
ging customer needs and expectations (Pujawan, 2004; Tachizawa
and Thomsen, 2007; Marley et al., 2014). The literature presents
many different definitions of flexibility and no uniform concept is
broadly accepted.
The challenge of developing and maintaining flexibility does
not stop at the boundaries of the firm (Bessant et al., 2003). Firms
operate within value streams involving many firms that are or-
ganized in supply chains (Volberda, 2009). Several studies have
argued that in order for a firm to achieve a level of flexibility that
adds value to customers, it must look beyond manufacturing
flexibility and include a supply chain or value chain perspective
(Krajewski et al., 2005; Schmenner and Tatikonda, 2005). This
reasoning implies that supply chain flexibility should be broadly
defined and should include all types of flexibility that have a direct
impact on a firm's customers (Kumar et al., 2006). However, there
is no consensus about the dimensions underlying supply chain
flexibility (Soon and Udin, 2011).
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: j.manders@fontys.nl (J.H.M. Manders),
marjolein.caniels@ou.nl (M.C.J. Caniëls), paul.ghijsen@ou.nl (P.W.Th. Ghijsen).
company, occasionally incorporating the adjoining view from a
supplier, distributor, or retailer and, at best, taking a dyadic per-
spective. Few studies on supply chain flexibility have included
three or more tiered organizations. To date, only four studies have
investigated three or four tiers (Reichart, 2007; Yi et al., 2011;
Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Singh and Sharma, 2013). Even these
studies still overlook that, for flexibility across the supply chain, it
is not sufficient to investigate the dyadic perspective of several
supply chain members. It is also necessary to study the relation-
ships between all these parties from an integral point of view.
Following stakeholder theory and network theory, the present
study emphasizes the importance of investigating the role of
supply chain members in decision making about flexibility-or-
iented activities and processes in the supply chain.
The aim of this study is to address the above-mentioned re-
search gap by examining supply chain flexibility from an in-
tegrated viewpoint of multiple supply chain members. The study's
key assumption is that, for supply chain flexibility, the organiza-
tions within the supply chain should be integrated to act collec-
tively to enhance supply chain flexibility in their supply chain. The
research questions are:

How do supply chain members experience flexibility, and in
particular, supply chain flexibility? What are their reasons for
being flexible?

Which flexibility dimensions are prioritized as the supply chain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001
1478-4092/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
182 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195

Table 1
An overview of flexibility dimensions.

Business area Flexibility dimension Description Source

Product development Product development
flexibility
New product design
flexibility
Product modification
flexibility
The ability to respond to changing customer needs with new pro- Zhang et al. (2002b)
ducts and modifications to existing products
The ability to design and introduce new products into the system Stevenson and Spring (2007)
The ability to customize (standard) products to meet customer Vickery et al. (1999); Lummus et al.
specifications (2003)

Procurement Procurement flexibility
Sourcing flexibility
Supply flexibility
Purchasing flexibility
The ability to respond to changing requirements regarding the Mandersa
sourcing, purchasing and supply of goods
The ability to find more suppliers for each specific material, com- Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005)
ponent or service
The ability to respond to changing requirements in terms of location Based on Tachizawa and Thomsen (2007)
and/or delivery date
The ability to respond to changing needs in the ordering, delivery Mandersa
and receipt of supplied goods

Manufacturing Manufacturing flexibility
Volume flexibility
Mix flexibility
Operations flexibility
Process flexibility
Expansion flexibility
The ability to manage production resources to meet customer
requests
The ability to adjust (increase or decrease) capacity, batch sizes,
output levels and/or quantities in response to customer demand
The ability to change the variety or combination of produced or
delivered products and/or performed activities
The ability in which an activity can be done in different ways using
alternative process plans, processes and available assets
The ability to produce a range of different (types of) products or
fulfill different activities in a certain fixed situation
The ability to easy add capacity to the system
Nair (2005)
Based on Beamon (1999); Lummus et al.
2003; Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005)
Based on Beamon (1999); Zhang et al.
(2003)
Based on Sethi and Sethi (1990); Vokurka
and O’Leary Kelly (2000)
Based on Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005);
Stevenson and Spring (2007); Hopp et al.
(2010)
Stevenson and Spring (2007)

Logistics Logistics flexibility
Inbound logistics flexibility
Routing flexibility
Material handling flexibility
Physical distribution
flexibility
Delivery flexibility
Storage flexibility
The ability to align, adapt and adjust the process of the goods flow Swafford et al. (2000); Nair (2005); Soon
including the inbound and outbound activities and the storage of and Udin (2011)
the goods to the changing customers’ needs
The ability to transport and produce products by different paths Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007)
throughout the processing centers of the system
The ability to have a number of alternative paths a part or product Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000); Ste-
can take through the system in order to be completed venson and Spring (2007)
The ability to move the different products between processing Koste and Malhotra (1999); Stevenson
centers throughout the system using multiple paths and Spring (2007)
The ability to adjust inventory and transport to provide a wide- Based on Lummus et al. (2003); Zhang
spread access to products and meet customers’ needs et al. (2005); Singh et al. (2011)
The ability to respond to changes in the delivery requests regarding Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007);
location and/or delivery date Skintzi (2007)
The ability to adjust the storage capacity and/or move the stock Based on Schütz and Tomasgard 2011;
between locations to transfer the goods/products in time Sánchez and Pérez Pérez (2005)

Marketing Marketing flexibility
Launch flexibility
Responsive flexibility
The ability to adapt to changes in the market environment and/or in Based on Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly
customer needs by customization and build close relationships with (2000); Lummus et al. 2003; Stevenson
customers and Spring (2007)
The ability to rapidly introduce new products and/or product vari- Vickery et al. (1999); Sánchez and Pérez
eties to the market Pérez (2005)
The ability to respond to target market needs Lummus et al. (2003)

Organization Network flexibility
Organizational flexibility
Labor flexibility
Worker flexibility
Inter-organizational re-
lationship flexibility
The ability to respond to changing circumstances by managing the Based on Yi et al. (2011)
organizations relationships, structures and controlling its capacity
The ability to align the organization management and labor force to Lummus et al. (2005)
meet customer demand/service requirements
The ability to change the number of workers Based on Gong (2008)
The ability of a worker to perform a number of different tasks with Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007)
different responsibilities
The ability to build and maintain collaborative relationships up and/ Based on Stevenson and Spring (2007)
or downstream to adapt to changing circumstances

(Financial) information Information systems
flexibility
Spanning flexibility
The ability to align the information system architectures and sys- Lummus et al. (2005)
tems with the changing information needs of the organization as it
responds to changing customer demand
The ability of the organizations to collect, store and disseminate Zhang et al. (2006); Nair (2005)
information in horizontal information connections across the supply
chain to increase value to customers

a
In the literature, flexibility dimensions found in the fields of procurement, sourcing, supply and purchasing overlap. Based on the procurement literature, purchasing
flexibility is defined as flexibility focused on the ordering, delivery and receipt of goods. Procurement flexibility is defined to incorporate the whole procurement process
including supply, sourcing and purchasing flexibility.
 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
members strive for supply chain flexibility?

Why do supply chain members prioritize certain flexibility
dimensions?
This research makes three contributions. First, as far as can be
ascertained, this is the first study to take into account several
subsequent members in a supply chain; namely, the focal firm plus
its suppliers, the logistic service provider (LSP), and its retailers.
Second, this investigation adds to studies that investigate supply
chain flexibility. The present study explores the experiences of
supply chain organizations regarding flexibility in general, and
supply chain flexibility in particular. The focus is on the im-
portance of mutuality and integration activities, such as a con-
tinuous information flow. Findings suggest that each chain mem-
ber implements flexibility to fulfill the direct needs of the next-tier
chain member. An overall focus on supply chain flexibility is
lacking. Third, existing studies have identified a number of flex-
ibility dimensions (e.g., Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and
Spring, 2007), but have not provided insights into how these
flexibility dimensions are experienced by organizations in a supply
chain, and the reasons why certain flexibility dimensions are
prioritized. The present study shows how supply chain goals,
processes, activities, and relationships of supply chain organiza-
tions are linked to the priority given to certain flexibility dimen-
sions in the short, medium and long term.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2
defines supply chain flexibility and briefly identifies the concept of
supply chain flexibility dimensions from literature. That section
also explains why stakeholder and network theory is used to
analyze the experiences of the supply chain members regarding
flexibility in the supply chain. Section 3 describes the research
methodology, followed by the research findings in Section 4. The
article ends with conclusions and a discussion of academic con-
tributions and managerial implications, followed by limitations
and suggestions for future research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Supply chain flexibility
Gunasekaran et al. (2001) and Yi et al. (2011) defined supply
chain flexibility as the flexibility to meet particular customer needs
in the supply chain. This definition is extended to reflect the
supply chain by proposing that supply chain flexibility is the
ability of all members within the supply chain to adopt a chain
perspective and change or react to environmental uncertainty and
meet the increasing variety of customer expectations without
excessive costs, time, and organizational disruptions or perfor-
mance losses (based on Upton (1994), (1995); Zhang et al.
(2002a)).
(Supply chain) flexibility is a multidimensional concept. We
identified 95 flexibility dimensions in supply chain flexibility lit-
erature (Appendix 1) (Manders et al., 2014). Based on insights
from the resource-based view and the knowledge-based view,
these 95 dimensions were categorized into seven business areas:
product development, procurement, manufacturing, logistics,
marketing, (financial) information, and organization. For each
business area, the flexibility definitions are mapped on the func-
tions and characteristics of the supply chain (Pujawan, 2004;
Fantazy et al., 2009). In this way, overlapping flexibility dimen-
sions were identified. Furthermore, definitions and dimensions
that have been adopted in the literature were discerned. Based on
this compilation of seven mappings, the 30 most used dimensions
were identified that cover the topic of flexibility within the supply
chain (see Table 1).
183
2.2. Network theory, stakeholder theory, and supply chain flexibility
Supply chains are, in essence, a form of a network: “a network
of actors that transform raw materials into distributed products”
(Handfield and Nichols (2002) cited in Ketchen and Guinepro,
(2004:52)). Some of the activities may occur within one firm,
while other activities may cross firm boundaries and involve var-
ious stakeholders.
Network theory focuses on the relationships that an organiza-
tion has with other organizations and how these relationships
influence the organization's behavior and outcomes (Thorelli,
1986). Networks can amplify the resources of individual organi-
zations through integration (Mentzer et al., 2001). Integration can
occur in terms of material flows and information sharing (Frohlich
and Westbrook, 2001; Chen and Paulraj, 2004). The need for
flexibility is influenced by the way information is shared, as well as
how the material flows are coordinated and stocks are kept
(Bowersox et al., 2002; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Organizations
are influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the activities and
choices of other stakeholders in the supply chain (Handfield and
Nichols, 2002; Cantor et al., 2014; Zsidisin et al., 2015).
Stakeholders are any group of individuals that can affect
or is affected by the achievement of an organization's objective
(Freeman, 1984:46). Stakeholders along the supply chain are en-
tities that influence a firm's supply chain policies and practices.
They include the customers, retail outlets, financial institutions,
governmental organizations, third-party logistics providers, au-
thorized representatives and distributors, manufacturers and
contract manufacturers, and suppliers and vendors (Co and Barro,
2009). Internal stakeholders are stakeholders within the (focal)
firm, such as managers and employees, while those outside of the
organization – such as suppliers, third-party logistics service pro-
viders, and governmental organizations – are defined as external
stakeholders (Sarkis et al., 2010; Cantor et al., 2014). Clarkson
(1995) made a further distinction between primary stakeholders
and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are those who
contribute to the survival of the organization. Without the parti-
cipation and support of these stakeholders, which can include
customers, suppliers and manufacturers, an organization cannot
survive. Secondary stakeholders make a more limited contribu-
tion. These stakeholders (which include the media, governmental
and non-governmental organizations) affect and are affected by
the organization, but are not engaged in its economic transactions.
The underlying study focuses on flexibility experiences within
the supply chain. Stakeholder theory is followed by investigating
the goals and activities of several primary, internal and external
stakeholders in the chain, namely the suppliers, the manufacturer
(focal firm), the LSP and the retailers. Following network theory,
the relationships between these stakeholders in the chain are
explored. The specific area of interest was how supply chain
flexibility is experienced by the organizations that operate as a
supply chain. By adopting stakeholder and network theory, the
experiences of the organizations are covered, as well as the link
among the organizations regarding the adoption of flexibility in
the supply chain.
3. Methodology
Much remains unknown about how supply chain members
decide which flexibilities are important for their own organization,
for their relationship with supply chain members, and for the
entire supply chain as a whole. The need for in-depth knowledge
about (supply chain) flexibility and its dimensions warrants an
exploratory, case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss et al.,
2002; Yin, 2009). In order to study supply chain flexibility from a
184 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
supply chain perspective and develop a more complete under-
standing of supply chain flexibility, it is important to assess the
impact on the wider supply chain, across groups of inter-related
organizations (Stevenson and Spring, 2007). Hence, one supply
chain is investigated (single case study) and eight organizations
within the chain (embedded cases). Network theory and stake-
holder theory are used to map and analyze the single, embedded
case. Although single case study research has limited general-
izability, it does make it possible to acquire in-depth insights into
unexplored territory (Dubois and Gadde, 2014). Given the limited
empirical evidence on this topic from prior studies, an abductive
nonlinear approach is followed, as described by Dubois and Gadde
(2002, Dubois and Gadde 2014), in which the researcher con-
stantly goes back and forth between empirical observations and
theory.
3.1. The sampling process
Theoretical sampling led to the selection of several supply
chains from a list of Dutch manufacturing companies with one
hundred or more employees. Selection criteria were:

There are active efforts to integrate along the chain. A focus on
integration between supply chain members underlies supply
chain thinking, supply chain performance and, as such, (supply
chain) flexibility (Tan et al., 1998; Lambert and Cooper, 2000;
Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001).

Information exchange within the supply chain takes place. In-
formation exchange underlies cooperation (Prajogo and Olha-
ger, 2012; Ellram and Cooper, 2014).

from company websites and company publications was reviewed
Companies in the chain underline the importance of creating
mutual benefits for all supply chain members. The underlying
assumption in this study was that the organizations within the
chain should be integrated to some extent in order for supply
chain flexibility to be possible. In that way, they can act as a
single entity to enhance overall supply chain flexibility (Ment-
zer et al., 2001; Bowersox et al., 2002).
The latter two criteria were implemented as a check on whe-
ther there are active efforts to integrate along the chain. Three
focal firms fulfilled the criteria and were sent more information
concerning the research plan and requirements regarding the
participation of their supply chain members. The study proceeded
with the company that could best fulfill the requirements with
respect to providing access to supply chain members.
Table 2
An overview of the organizations involved in this study.
Organization Firm Product #Employees Revenue (€)
A Supplier Packaging materials 1400
B Supplier Raw material 605
C Supplier Raw material 2400
D Manufacturer Food 1200
E Logistics Service Warehouse, logistics 1253
Provider (LSP) and distribution
services
F Retailer Food/Non-food 110,000
G Retailer Food/Non-food 741
H Retailer Food/Non-food 9100
3.2. Data collection and analyses
The FMCG food supply chain in this study consists of eight
companies (excluding the consumers): three suppliers, one man-
ufacturer (the focal company), one LSP and three retailers. Names
of the organizations have been kept confidential at the partici-
pants' request. Data about the supply chain framework were col-
lected, including archival records of documents and presentations
to improve the researchers' understanding of the supply chain.
Introductory meetings were held with key informants of the focal
firm in order to become familiar with the focal company and the
other members of the chain. The interviewees were selected via
the key informant method (McCracken, 1988). Purposive sampling
generated a complete and detailed overview of supply chain
flexibility from the operational and commercial perspective.
In total, 19 semi-structured interviews of approximately 90 min
each were carried out with representatives from the organizations
involved (Table 2). The interviews gathered information about the
supply chain, the processes and activities, and the position of the
interviewee. The main themes addressed in the interviews were:
the interviewees’ perspective on flexibility and supply chain flex-
ibility, their experiences with flexibility and supply chain flex-
ibility, the flexibility dimensions that were important for them
(and their organization) and the reasons why they chose to focus
on a certain dimensions given their goals (see Fig. 1).
In addition to the interviews, observation data was gathered
regarding the processes, and the flexibility choices made within
these processes during site visits and discussions with employees
at the shop floor. The companies also gave access to relevant
company info (such as spreadsheets and systems data) and other
data sources, such as presentations and forms. Secondary data
as well. The case study protocol is available upon request. The
audio-taped interviews were transcribed by the researchers, also
using written notes and pictures made during the interviews and
company visits. Coding was used to structure and analyze the
collected data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The codes were based
on our research questions and the semi-structured interview
protocol. The codes cover:

The meaning or definitions used;

The experiences, including barriers and developments
encountered;

The importance; that is, which aspects are important and why
from supply chain or/and organization perspective;

The moment of action (time horizon); when certain aspects are
important and when they are used.
#Participants Participant position
275 million 4 Plant manager, Supply Chain Manager, Key account
manager, Customer Service Executive
888 million 1 Logistics Executive
5.9 billion 1 Supply Chain Manager
1.1 billion 7 Factory outbound logistics manager, Market Logistics
Director, Supply Inbound manager, OPTS, Supervisor
production planning, Planner, Scheduler.
274,5 million 3 Site Manager Factory Operations, Site Manager, Business
Unit Manager Transport
32.6 billion 1 Replenishment Operations Manager
2 billion 1 Logistics Director
2.5 billion 1 Supply Chain Manager
 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
Fig. 1. Research framework.
Appendix 2 presents the coding scheme. The transcripts and
coding files, as well as the original recordings, were collected in a
case study database together with all the other case information
(Gibbert et al., 2008). After the coding process, pattern matching
was applied and data matrices were used to analyze the data
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). In this way, information from various
parties could be compared regarding (1) their (supply chain)
flexibility experiences within this supply chain, (2) their prior-
itized supply chain flexibility dimensions, and (3) the reasons why
these dimensions were prioritized. Information was processed in
an iterative way (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). Initial observations
and findings were discussed with the participants of the organi-
zations involved. A draft report was presented to all eight orga-
nizations. Their feedback was incorporated and final findings were
shared with the focal company in the form of fact sheets as well as
a final report.
3.3. Research framework
The aim of this study was to investigate how supply chain
members experience flexibility and supply chain flexibility, and
which flexibility dimensions are prioritized when focusing on
their goal(s). It became clear during the interviews that the focus
on certain flexibility dimensions was dependent on the time
horizon of goals. Consistent with an abductive nonlinear approach
in our analysis (Dubois and Gadde, 2002, 2014), this information
was included within the research framework by adding “the mo-
ment of action” (see Fig. 1). The first interviewees were re-inter-
viewed about this “when” question.
Fig. 1 presents the finalized research framework. The unit of
Fig. 2. A graphical overview of the FMCG food supply chain.
185
analysis is the supply chain, which equals the focal company plus
suppliers, LSP and retailers as primary stakeholders. The re-
lationships between these organizations influence the functioning
of the entire supply chain.
4. Findings
4.1. The FMCG food supply chain
Fig. 2 present an overview of the FMCG food supply chain.
Organization (A) is a supplier of packaging materials and has
several locations in Europe. A VMI stock held at the LSP (E), near
the site of the manufacturing organization (D), generally covers
demand for two to eight weeks. The lead-time is three to four
weeks, depending on the complexity of the product.
Organization (B) is in fact a cooperative with five locations in
The Netherlands. It is involved in the manufacturing of raw ma-
terials for the food industry and final products for the consumer
market. The raw materials are delivered in bulk cargo to manu-
facturing company (D), 24/7. After production, the product is
stored in bulk silos at the factory location, from where it is pro-
cessed into the substance requested by the customer and trans-
ported several times a day to industrial customers, including
company (D).
Organization (C) is a multinational family business that pro-
vides food and agricultural products. The organization has several
locations in The Netherlands and Europe at large. Two of these
locations process the raw material on order on a 24/7 basis. Or-
ganization (C) has an inventory level for this specific commodity
with a maximum of one week, and its production has a lead time
of three days. Before delivery, the standard product is processed to
the requested substance and shipped in several truck-loads a day.
Organization (D), our focal company, is a worldwide organiza-
tion and manufacturer of FMCG goods in the food industry. It has a
factory (operations) and market organization in The Netherlands.
Its factory operates on a continuous base, for 80% on forecast and
20% on order. Storage and transport activities are outsourced to
LSP (E) and several other transport companies.
Organization (E) is a worldwide LSP to which the manufactur-
ing company (D) outsourced its warehouse, logistics and dis-
tribution services. Organization (E) undertakes the picking and
packing of the outgoing flows. It performs international customs
activities and transport activities in The Netherlands. The em-
ployees of this organization also arrange the delivery and logistics
of packing materials to the production lines. The locations of or-
ganization (E) that were visited for the present study are situated
nearby the production plant of the focal company (D).
Organization (F) is a Dutch retailer with regional and central
186 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
distribution centers, from which it delivers to its stores all over
The Netherlands. The stores receive daily fresh products and dry
groceries. Suppliers such as the focal company (D) make daily
deliveries at the retailer's warehouse. Goods are usually delivered
on the same day they are ordered. As not all suppliers deliver
during the weekend, most products are received on Friday up
front. Lead time from the warehouse to the stores is 18 h.
Organization (G) is a retail cooperative of independent stores in
The Netherlands. All stores are open from Monday till Saturday
and mostly also on Sundays. As legislation regarding opening on
Sundays obliges different opening hours for each of these stores,
several logistic complexities apply. At these stores, most products
are received by the retailer's distribution centers on Friday up
front. The stores are replenished by the retailer's own trucks and
receive fresh products and dry groceries on a daily basis.
Organization (H) is a food organization that undertakes retail
activities as well as food services market activities. The organiza-
tion has cash and carry wholesale locations and offers delivery
services using their Dutch distribution centers. For its retail,
(H) has separate distribution centers and stores in the middle and
south of The Netherlands.
The following points can be made regarding convergence and
alignment in the chain. The focal organization (D) has contact with
all the other supply chain organizations regarding the different
processes and activities in the chain. This contact consists of in-
teractions between employees from different organizations. In-
formation is shared via multiple planning systems, interfaces, or
EDI connections. Due to developments in the Dutch retail market,
the focal company cannot be seen as the supply chain leader or
overall supply chain coordinator. In the last decade, the Dutch
retail market has been characterized by takeovers and bank-
ruptcies of a few large retailers. As a result, the remaining retailers
have increased their size and market position leading to a pow-
erful position in this chain. Concretely, this means that not only
the focal company (D), but also retailers (F, G, and H) have sought
to integrate activities in this chain from their own perspective,
while aiming at creating benefits for all supply chain members.
4.2. Flexibility and supply chain flexibility
4.2.1. Respondents' view on flexibility and their reasons for being
flexible
Respondents state that flexibility has become increasingly im-
portant in recent years in the FMCG food chain because retailers
have downsized their stock positions. Customers determine the
amount of demanded products and the organizations in the supply
chain must respond to fluctuations until the moment of fulfill-
ment. Respondents from organization (E), which fulfills parts of
the logistic process of manufacturing organization (D), stated that
flexibility is “their way of life”. All respondents describe flexibility
as a way to “adapt or respond to the needs of the customer,” “de-
liver what the customer expects,” and “meet customer demand”.
Respondents stressed the particular importance of on shelf avail-
ability and case fill of the product; that is, the percentage of the
orders that can be delivered right away. One supplier stated that
“flexibility is not a goal in itself”, indicating that flexibility is not
used for the purpose of gaining profits, but merely to maintain the
relationship with the first-tier customers.
The interviews covered the type of products for which flex-
ibility is most needed. Respondents expressed that for the most
commonly ordered products – the so-called fast movers – the
“normal” demand pattern is quite stable, or at least can be fore-
casted quite well. Demand influences, such as the weather fore-
cast, do not usually lead to flexibility requests, as these circum-
stances are simply taken into account in the short-term prognosis
or in the orders communicated. Demand for slow movers, seasonal
products and promotions is different. The forecast for these pro-
ducts can exceed or fall behind by up to 25% compared to the
actual order. Promotion activities also influence the regular de-
mand pattern. For example, if consumers buy more of a product
within a promotion period, they will need less of that product in
the weeks following that promotion period. Promotions of one
retailer could also influence the regular or promotional demand
pattern of the other retailers in a certain period.
Not all stakeholders in this supply chain experience flexibility
as a competitive advantage. Although all of the organizations
stated that they would do anything to respond to customer needs,
which means they are flexible, some critical remarks regarding the
concept of flexibility were also made, such as:

Flexibility should be a (two-way) interaction: “The customer is
king, but the customer has to behave in a royal way too! ”
(supplier).

“Flexibility can lead to complexity as well” (manufacturer). One
supplier stated, in line with the manufacturer, that “the demand
for flexibility is growing in comparison to earlier periods, where
we worked with sharing only the ‘real orders’ instead of sharing
all kinds of information, such as forecast data and order data.”

Also: “Flexibility is needed when we cannot forecast adequately”
(supplier). “With the right information, a reliable forecast, we
could become adaptive instead of being flexible until the very
last moment” (manufacturer). All organizations noted that they
should only need flexibility for occasional hiccups that occur.

More flexibility is not always better. One supplier, the manu-
facturing company, and the retailer organizations all mentioned
the cost of flexibility and the tradeoffs that they experience.
However, the tradeoff between cost and flexibility is not ex-
plicit, because there is no factual data available on the costs of
flexibility.
The combination of downsized stock positions, fluctuations in
demand pattern, and production lines that are mostly designed
with efficiency or capacity in mind, leads to complexity and in-
creases the demand for flexibility and the number of flexibility
decisions that need to be made. Furthermore, the organizations
have rethought their use of flexibility with questions such as those
presented by participants of the manufacturing company. For ex-
ample: Is it necessary to be flexible in all aspects? To what extent
do we need to be flexible? Are we overreacting? Can we be
adaptive instead of flexible, because the latter is reactive instead of
proactive. And if so, what do we need to be proactive and control a
situation rather than just respond to it after it has happened.
Another point that emerged prominently during the interviews
was that flexibility is a priori expected by buying supply chain
members. Many respondents explained that “saying no is not an
option”. Firms are assumed to supply the requested amount and
“we have a problem if we are not flexible”, as one supplier put it.
4.2.2. Respondents' views on supply chain flexibility
A question that arose is whether supply chains are flexible as a
whole and act as a single entity (Tan et al., 1998), or whether
flexibility occurs in dyadic relationships only. In our study, all or-
ganizations noted that they have not experienced any overall
supply chain flexibility. In fact, they have experienced a lack of
coordination and alignment between chain members. Re-
spondents stated that every individual organization uses flexibility
to fulfill the requests of the next supply chain member. Hence,
they only experience flexibility in dyadic relationships. For sup-
pliers (A), (B), and (C), the requests made by manufacturing
company (D) are highly important. The logistic service provider
(E) focuses on manufacturing company (D), some of the suppliers
and retailers (F), (G), and (H). Manufacturing company (D) focuses
 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195 187

on the retailer's demand, which is, indirectly, the demand of the
final customers. The final customers buy the products in the store,
and their wishes are the main focus of the retailers.
Even though supply chain members are in contact with each
other, there is no multiparty governance mechanism or co-
ordinator that creates value based on flexibility within the whole
supply chain. Respondents of the focal manufacturing organiza-
tion, as well as suppliers and the LSP, indicate that information
systems are non-compatible, that time delays appear in informa-
tion sharing, variations in communication methods exist, and
hence a lack of coherent information processing occurs. The con-
tacts between the retailers and the manufacturer, and between the
manufacturer and the suppliers, are primarily determined by daily
operations and transactions. Manufacturer (D) is in daily contact
about forecasts and demand changes with the suppliers (A),
(B) and (C), and retailers (F), (G) and (H), but no information is
shared about why changes in forecasts and actual demand occur. A
reason for changes in demand from the retailer could be an in-
cidental promotional action for the product of manufacturer (D),
or a competing product, which may not be a reason for manu-
facturer (D) to change its longer-term demand to its suppliers. One
of the respondents provided the following example: When the
manufacturer receives a sudden increase in demand by the re-
tailers, it could be due to the wish of retailers to fill available truck
capacity. The manufacturing company may erroneously interpret
the increased retailer demand as increased final customer demand
and may therefore react by increasing production and enlarging
supply orders.
Respondents stated that sharing of more detailed information
and forecasts about customer demand would enable them to op-
erate and react flexibly to customer demand with the supply chain
as a whole. One retailer explained: “The culture to think as one
supply chain seems to be missing within the supply chain orga-
nizations”. Another retailer said: “Our procurement department
bought wine for a lower price than usual. Instead of boxes with six
bottles of wine, we now received boxes with eight bottles of wine.
These boxes with eight bottles have different sizes and cannot be
stacked as high on a pallet as the boxes with six bottles. As a result,
we in the logistics warehouse and transport have to deal with
more pallets and make more costs for the transport, handling and
storage. We wish that this decision would have been discussed
with us.” Respondents felt that if more detailed information would
be shared between supply chain members, actions throughout the
chain could be aligned. The information could provide valuable
input for future (collaborative) developments in the supply chain.
Another example of a lacking supply chain perspective stems
from the inbound and outbound logistic activities that are out-
sourced to the LSP. Such outsourcing could provide opportunities
to combine these activities. However, apart from the coordination
of some operational activities by the LSP, most coordination still
takes place within the focal manufacturing firm, and is governed
by the appointments of the manufacturer and the retailers with
the other stakeholders in the chain. Proper coordination does not
take place.

Table 3
Summary of the case study results on flexibility dimensions.

TOTAL (n¼ 8) SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER LSP RETAILER

(n¼ 3) (n¼ 1) (n ¼1) (n ¼ 3)
Business area Flexibility dimensions # % # # # #

Product development Product development flexibility 4.62 58% 2.00 0.29 0.33 2.00
New product design flexibility 4.48 56% 2.00 0.14 0.33 2.00
Product modification flexibility 4.76 60% 2.00 0.43 0.33 2.00

Procurement Procurement flexibility 5.15 64% 1.25 0.57 0.33 3.00

Sourcing flexibility 5.15 64% 1.25 0.57 0.33 3.00
Supply flexibility 6.02 75% 1.50 0.86 0.67 3.00
Purchasing flexibility 4.93 62% 1.50 0.43 0.00 3.00

Manufacturing Manufacturing flexibility 2.18 27% 1.75 0.43 0.00 0.00

Volume flexibility 8.00 100% 3.00 1.00 1.00 3,00
Mix flexibility 5.80 72% 1.75 0.71 0.33 3,00
Operations flexibility 3.32 42% 0.75 0.57 1.00 1.00
Process flexibility 3.65 46% 1.75 0.57 0.33 1.00
Expansion flexibility 5.45 68% 2.50 0.29 0.67 2.00

Logistics Logistics flexibility 6.88 86% 2.50 0.71 0.67 3.00

Inbound logistics flexibility 3.95 49% 0.00 0.29 0.67 3.00
Material handling flexibility 2.00 25% 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Routing flexibility 2.06 26% 0.25 0.14 0.67 1.00
Physical distribution flexibility 5.79 72% 2.50 0.29 1.00 2.00
Storage flexibility 7.57 95% 3.00 0.57 1.00 3.00
Delivery flexibility 6.24 78% 3.00 0.57 0.67 2.00

Marketing Marketing flexibility 3.50 44% 2.50 0.00 0.00 1.00

Launch flexibility 2.64 33% 1.50 0.14 0.00 1.00
Responsive flexibility 6.51 81% 2.75 0.43 0.33 3.00

Organization Network flexibility 5.65 71% 2.75 0.57 0.33 2.00

Organizational flexibility 6.85 86% 2.75 0.43 0.67 3.00
Labor flexibility 6.04 75% 1.75 0.29 1.00 3.00
Worker flexibility 6.13 77% 2.75 0.71 0.67 2.00
Interorganizational relationship flexibility 5.65 71% 2.75 0.57 0.33 2.00

(Financial) information Information systems flexibility 6.86 86% 2.00 0.86 1.00 3.00
Spanning flexibility 6.75 84% 1.75 1.00 1.00 3.00

Numbers in cells were calculated by averaging individual responses for one firm and then adding up the responses for the firms of one type.
 188
Table 4
Supply chain flexibility dimensions by time horizon.

Panel A Panel B
All parties (n ¼ 8) Short-term Mid-term Long-term
(n ¼ 8) (n ¼ 8) (n ¼ 8)
Business area Flexibility dimensions Short- Mid- Long - SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER LSP RETAILER SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER LSP RETAILER SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER LSP RETAILER
term term term (n ¼ 3) (n¼ 1) (n¼ 1) (n¼ 3) (n ¼ 3) (n ¼ 1) (n ¼ 1) (n ¼ 3) (n ¼ 3) (n¼ 1) (n ¼1) (n ¼3)

Product devel- Product development 0.25 3.98 0.39 1.50 0.14 0.33 2.00 0.14
opment flexibility
New product design 0.00 4.23 0.25 1.75 0.14 0.33 2.00
flexibility
Product modification 0.00 4.37 0.39 1.75 0.29 0.33 2.00
flexibility

J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
Procurement Procurement flexibility 1.00 4.01 0.14 1.25 0.43 0.33 2.00
Sourcing flexibility 1.00 4.01 0.14 1.25 0.43 0.33 2.00
Supply flexibility 3.01 3.01 0.00 0.43 0.33 2.00 1.25 0.43 0.33
Purchasing flexibility 2.39 2.54 0.00 2.00 1.25 0.29

Manufacturing Manufacturing flexibility 0.14 2.04 0.00 1.75 0.29

Volume flexibility 8.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
Mix flexibility 4.07 1.73 0.00 1.50 0.57 2.00 0.33
Operations flexibility 1.48 1.85 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.43 0.67
Process flexibility 0.00 3.51 0.14 1.75 0.43 0.33 1.00
Expansion flexibility 0.00 5.20 0.25 2.25 0.29 0.67 2.00

Logistics Logistics flexibility 3.14 3.60 0.14 3.00 2.50 0.43 0.67
Inbound logistics flexibility 2.00 1.81 0.14 2.00 0.14 0.67 0.14
Material handling 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
flexibility
Routing flexibility 1.00 1.06 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.14 0.67
Physical distribution 5.06 0.73 0.00 2.25 0.14 0.67 2.00 0.14
flexibility
Storage flexibility 6.39 1.18 0.00 2.25 1.00 3.00 0.43
Delivery flexibility 5.74 0.50 0.00 2.50 0.57 0.67 2.00

Marketing Marketing flexibility 0.00 3.00 0.50 2.00 1.00

Launch flexibility 0.25 2.25 0.14 1.25 1.00 0.14
Responsive flexibility 3.54 2.73 0.25 1.25 0.29 2.00 1.25 0.33

Organization Network flexibility 1.14 3.89 0.62 1.75 2.00 0.29 0.33
Organizational flexibility 1.64 5.21 0.00 2.25 0.29 0.67 2.00
Labor flexibility 0.50 5.54 0.00 1.25 0.29 1.00 3.00
Worker flexibility 0.39 5.74 0.00 2.50 0.57 0.67 2.00
Interorganizational re- 1.29 3.89 0.48 0.29 1.00 2.75 1.00 0.33
lationship flexibility

(Financial) Information systems 0.54 1.45 4.87 0,29 0.29 0.67 1.25 0.29 3.00
information flexibility
Spanning flexibility 0.14 1.76 4.85 0.43 1.75 0.43 0.67 2.00

Shading indicates importance (Panel A) as well as the level of agreement over types of actor (Panel B). Numbers in cells were calculated by averaging individual responses for one firm and then adding up the responses for the firms
of one type.
 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
4.3. Flexibility dimensions
As part of the interviews, respondents indicated the flexibility
dimensions that they considered critical for a flexible organization.
Table 3 summarizes the frequencies with which each dimension
was mentioned (darker shading denotes more mentions in the
“TOTAL” column).
Table 3 illustrates that volume flexibility is generally indicated
as the most important dimension for being flexible. The light-grey-
shaded flexibilities were described as important by the majority of
respondents.
When asked about reasons for prioritizing certain dimensions
and not others, the respondents indicated that priorities are de-
termined by the time frame for which goals are formulated and in
which activities take place. Three time horizons emerged as hav-
ing an impact on the prioritization of flexibilities: (1) short-term,
daily operations, and goals; (2) mid-term, weekly/monthly goals;
and (3) long-term goals, yearly issues. Panel A in Table 4 shows
how many parties mentioned the importance of a particular
flexibility in a certain time frame. Shading indicates the im-
portance for that time frame. Panel B shows the flexibility di-
mensions that various types of actor mentioned most often. Here,
shading indicates importance as well as agreement about im-
portance. The darkest shading indicates that four out of four types
mentioned this particular flexibility. The light grey shading shows
instances in which three out of four types mention a particular
flexibility.
4.3.1. Short-term
All respondents highlighted the importance of volume flex-
ibility for supply chain flexibility (Table 3 and 4). However, each
supply chain member had different ideas about the exact way to
achieve volume flexibility in the chain. Respondents in a produc-
tion context mentioned volume flexibility regarding the product
line capacity. Respondents in transport mentioned volume flex-
ibility regarding the carrier capacity. All supply chain members felt
that the ability to adjust capacity, batch sizes, output levels, and
quantities in response to customer demand was important on a
daily basis in order to fulfill customer demand and to deliver lo-
gistics customer service. Delivering the right product and the right
amount of the product (volume, mix flexibility) was imperative for
supply chain flexibility in the short term, as was the delivery time
to the right place (physical distribution, delivery, supply and sto-
rage flexibility).
Regarding supply and delivery flexibility, respondents indicated
that the delivery moments and delivery dates are particularly
important. For instance, they need flexibility in distributing de-
liveries to multiple warehouse locations. All parties except the LSP
identified mix flexibility, as related to volume flexibility; the LSP
simply delivers the volume requested. Suppliers, retailers, and
manufacturers all mentioned the importance of storage flexibility.
Notably, respondents took a dyadic perspective instead of a
supply chain perspective. They referred to storage flexibility in
terms of inventory and flexibility in stock levels of certain pro-
ducts. Only the LSP offered an overarching supply chain view. LSP
respondents are concerned about the storage capacity within the
chain and the possibility of moving stock between locations, as
well as the need to rent additional storage capacity.
4.3.2. Mid-term
Table 4 shows the need for each flexibility dimension on a mid-
term basis, except for volume flexibility. The relative importance of
these mid-term flexibility dimensions depends on specific orga-
nizational processes, and hence on the position of an organization
within the supply chain.
Product development flexibility (development of new products
189
and the modification of existing products) is most important for
suppliers, especially organization A. The packaging company
works in a make-to-order environment and has an innovation
center to design and modify its packaging on customer request.
For this organization, flexibility refers to being able to provide
packaging solutions in a very short time frame, sometimes within
days. The respondent from this organization mentioned that “al-
though the organization excels in flexibility with regard to product
development, the approval process involved with using a new
packaging solution by the manufacturing company (D) can be
slow, and may take months.”
In general, respondents indicated that organizational flexibility,
labor, and worker flexibility are most important in the mid-term.
In almost all companies, employees are trained to be able to re-
place team members in case of holidays and short-term absence.
Additionally, all organizations employ a flexible workforce from a
temporary work agency. Several organizations even have an aux-
iliary temporary work agency within their own realms.
All respondents mentioned the importance of procurement
flexibility. Most organizations employ multiple transport compa-
nies. Some organizations indicated that they rely on a few key
suppliers. To increase sourcing flexibility, they wish to build an
approved supplier database for certain products. Also, the retailer
prefers access to multiple suppliers as one supplier cannot always
fulfill the demand. Furthermore, respondents stated that the pur-
chasing process itself requires flexibility. Changing forecasts and
actual customer demands require intense communication among
supply chain members concerning flexibility in the ordering, de-
livery, and receipt of the goods.
As each type of supply chain organization performs unique
activities in the mid-term, they differ largely in their prioritization
of flexibilities. An overarching supply chain perspective on these
mid-term flexibilities was not found.
4.3.3. Long-term
In the long-term, the importance of spanning and information
systems flexibility was mentioned most often (Table 4). These
flexibilities involve building, aligning, and maintaining relation-
ships with the other organizations in the chain. This requires
making strategic decisions that may imply large investments; in IT,
for instance. The respondents indicated that they were aware of
the need for these flexibilities, but admitted that they actually
devote minimal time to achieving them. The respondents con-
sidered complete alignment, as in the case of a virtual integrated
supply chain, to be “a bridge too far”. The data reveals that none of
the organizations in the chain are able to take an overall supply
chain view and initiate discussions about strategic flexibility
issues.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study has demonstrated the flexibility experiences in a
supply chain, by exploring the way flexibility is perceived by four
tiered members in a FMCG food supply chain.
5.1. Addressing flexibility experiences at the supply chain level
Our first research question addressed how supply chain
members experience flexibility, and in particular, supply chain
flexibility. In line with previous studies (e.g., Vickery et al., 1999;
Zhang et al., 2002a; Kumar et al., 2006), our empirical observa-
tions indicate that supply chain parties view flexibility as a way to
adapt to the needs of the customer. Flexibility is not perceived as a
way to improve the functioning and competitiveness of the entire
chain. Hence, supply chain flexibility, as such, is not present in
190 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
practice. Furthermore, the study shows that organizations are
concerned about the costs involved with being flexible. So far,
existing studies have only hinted towards possible flexibility costs
(Stevenson and Spring, 2007). As far as can be ascertained, this is
the first study in which respondents have pointed out the possible
negative consequences of being flexible.
The second and third research questions addressed which
flexibility dimensions are prioritized and why these are prior-
itized. In line with articles focusing on supply chain flexibility
(Zhang et al. 2002a; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and
Spring, 2007), the results of the present study indicate that all 30
flexibility dimensions are important to supply chain parties. Pre-
vious studies have stressed the importance of volume and delivery
flexibility (e.g., Sánchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Schütz and To-
masgard, 2011; Thomé et al., 2014). The present study’s findings
are in line with those studies, but also indicate why the focus is
mainly on these flexibilities. By taking into account the time hor-
izon of different firm activities, it becomes clear that a firm’s short-
term actions concentrate on maintaining the relationship with
first-tier customers. There is a dyadic focus on delivering the right
product, in the right amount (volume and mix flexibility), at the
right moment, to the right place (physical distribution, supply-/
delivery- and storage flexibility). Volume and delivery flexibility
are predominantly at play in the short-term, in the day-to-day
activities of firms (Table 4). Hence, these are prioritized.
Furthermore, the present study reveals that the prioritization
of flexibilities in the medium term differs for each type of supply
chain organization (Table 4). These findings support those of ear-
lier studies that a firm's supply chain position in the chain may
determine the relative importance of each flexibility dimension for
that firm (Stevenson and Spring, 2007, 2009). Again, however,
prior studies have not explained why this would be the case. The
present study suggests that, especially in the medium term, the
position in the chain determines which flexibility is prioritized.
Consequently, a lack of overview and mutual understanding of
each party's role in the chain hinders an integrated supply chain
perspective.
This study has shown that, in the long term, firms stress the
importance of supply chain overarching flexibilities such as
spanning and information systems flexibility. This finding is ex-
plained by studies about up and downstream relationships be-
tween supply chain parties (e.g., Stevenson and Spring, 2007).
Spanning and information systems flexibility are typically related
to improving relationships between the members in the supply
chain, sharing information, and thinking as a whole instead of
acting as separate actors (Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Zhang et al.,
2006). Therefore, these flexibilities are considered essential in the
long term. However, the findings from the present study also in-
dicate that such initiatives are rarely undertaken in practice, as
short- and mid-term operations determine daily concerns. As a
result, a clear perception of the supply chain as a single entity is
still absent in supply chain parties.
5.2. Theoretical contribution
This study contributes to the existing literature in several ways.
First, the study has a broad theoretical and empirical scope. Prior
conceptual research has identified various sets of flexibility di-
mensions based on limited literature reviews (e.g., Kumar et al.,
2006; Singh et al., 2011). In contrast, the present study system-
atically overviewed 92 studies and identified 30 dimensions of
flexibility that together address all processes in the chain and are
the most commonly used in the current literature (Table 1). Fur-
thermore, whereas prior empirical research has mainly focused on
isolated flexibility dimensions (e.g., Hopp et al., 2010; Soon and
Udin, 2011), the empirical research presented herein investigates
all dimensions in an embedded case study design.
Second, the case study data in the present study has demon-
strated that although the case shows forward and backward in-
tegration activities regarding information sharing and logistics
coordination, this level of integration is not enough to achieve
supply chain flexibility within the chain. Existing studies advocate
forward and backward integration activities, such as the sharing of
forecasts and orders, by permitting access to planning systems or
by using EDI connections (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Chen
and Paulraj, 2004). The present study demonstrates that this is not
sufficient. Even if these systems are in place, there is still a lack of
coherent information processing in practice. Available information
is not used, or even retrieved from the systems, or is not trans-
ferred quickly enough between systems and organizations. The
shared information only contains data that the organizations
themselves would like to receive, or find important to share. There
is a lack of background information that is needed in order to
understand the data offered in information systems. The com-
plexity of the shared information leads to (own) interpretations
per organization, giving rise to increasing confusion in the com-
munication between members. Hence, the present results extend
findings from studies that have focused on supply chain relation-
ships (e.g., Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012),
which show that a lack of communication is detrimental for mu-
tual respect and tolerance.
In addition to this point, the present study shows that as par-
ties give their own interpretation to information from planning
systems, this can lead to bull whip effects (Lee et al., 1997) and
even increase the need for flexibility in the chain. These findings
have nuanced the debated role of information sharing in supply
chain management. Several studies have indicated that too little
information sharing leads to high inventories throughout the
chain (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001) and deteriorates chain
performance (Prajago and Ollhager, 2012). In contrast, other stu-
dies have shown that information overload leads to bull whip ef-
fects (Wang, 2010). The results of the present study show that it is
crucial to study the interpretation of the shared information by
each organization in the chain. Future studies should focus less on
the amount of shared information and more on the content of
shared information and how this content is interpreted by other
chain members.
This study has shown that there are many ways in which data
sharing in the chain can go wrong, which may instigate less co-
operation, and less willingness to be flexible. Consequently, the
flexibility of the supply chain as a whole to adapt to exogenous
influences may spiral downward, even when information systems
are used. Future studies into supply chain flexibility should be
aware of this phenomenon and employ in-depth analysis of data
to be able to reveal what truly lies beneath the surface of data
sharing.
Third, despite the integration activities within this supply
chain, the data in this study did not provide evidence of an over-
arching nature of supply chain flexibility. Organizations strive for
supply chain flexibility, but, in practice, flexibility predominantly
affects the operational aspects of dyadic relationships. Network
theory suggests that supply chain organizations should integrate
supply chain operations, and all organizations should focus on
joint supply chain goals, including decreasing the long-term total
costs of the supply chain and increasing value added (Bowersox
et al., 2002; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Ellram and Cooper, 2014).
However, the present findings show that although organizations
try to act as a coordinated supply chain entity and incorporate
supply chain flexibility, each party still has its own financial ob-
jectives and key performance indicators that dictate its day-to-day
actions. Hence, parties minimize their own costs instead of using
an overarching cost-efficient supply chain approach. All
 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
organizations within the researched chain prioritize their first-tier
customers when they make flexibility decisions. This is in contrast
with an overarching chain perspective, as advocated by the supply
chain and network literature (Tan et al., 1998; Mentzer et al.,
2001), yet in practice this behavior prevails. Furthermore, although
our case claimed to have a high level of logistic integration, in
practice, its performance remained limited. The focal manu-
facturing company and the retailers undertook isolated coordina-
tion activities, which were driven by internal financial objectives,
and were not beneficial for achieving supply chain flexibility. This
confirms results from Sandberg (2007), whose study of logistics
collaboration also found that there are significant differences be-
tween supply chain management theory and practice. In conclu-
sion, while there may be integration and coordination on the
surface, daily supply chain practice may be very different.
5.3. Limitations
The present study has certain limitations. The first is connected
to the sample. The study was conducted in a FMCG food supply
chain that has logistics service provision as its aim. Further re-
search is needed to supply chains in industries with other char-
acteristics, such as durables, long-time investment products, slow-
moving creative goods, other non-durables, and services. Research
could also be conducted in supply chains in different settings, such
as a chain that involves many small and medium-sized enterprises.
An often mentioned limitation of supply chain research per-
tains to the fact that firms may be involved in many other supply
chains, which may be of higher priority to the firm. Although we
did not find prominent evidence of the boundary issue in our case
study, it may still be at play to some degree. Future case study
research may want to explicitly address the boundary issue in
interviews. Additionally, future research may want to extend the
number of firms in their investigation to include for instance also
the network of alternative manufacturers that suppliers supply to.
Another limitation of the present study is that all organizations
were interviewed within the time span of two months. It would be
interesting to find out how supply chains develop over time and
whether progress is made towards more alignment on supply
chain overarching issues. A longitudinal study would be the best
way to gather this data.
5.4. Managerial implications
With regard to managerial implications, the present study
provides insights to professionals in the area of supply chain
management. The study shows which flexibilities are prioritized
for different time horizons. Furthermore, professionals are made
aware that although supply chain members may strive for align-
ment of goals and performance indicators, this is hard to attain in
practice. Supply chain managers should check whether organiza-
tions in their chain have difficulties to adopt an overarching supply
chain view. Efforts to integrate the chain should go beyond
191
involving first-tier buyers and suppliers. Supply chain managers
could proactively schedule discussions with all parties simulta-
neously with the objective of improving the functioning of the
chain as a whole. In this way, supply chain managers could create
insight and awareness about how the actions of one party may
have consequences throughout the chain. Such discussion would
improve mutual understanding of each supply chain party's pro-
cesses and activities. Yet, this is only an initial step towards a more
intense supply chain view that is shared by all involved parties. An
improved mutual understanding should be a starting point for in-
depth discussions about specific issues that concern the entire
chain, for example issues of data sharing. Even though data shar-
ing is taking place across supply chain organizations, consensus is
needed about when information is shared and what this in-
formation should contain to facilitate the entire chain. This is es-
sential in order to avoid a downward spiral in which incorrect
interpretations of information lead to less cooperation, and ulti-
mately less flexibility.
Moreover, the results of this study show that the LSP holds a
unique position in the chain by having close day-to-day interac-
tion with many supply chain members. In general, supply chain
managers should assess whether there are certain parties in their
chain that hold such a unique position. Such organization may be
in a position to coordinate information that is crucial for aligning
the chain. In a discussion with all parties involved in the chain it
could be explored whether this party is allowed to have access to
information that is critical to develop an overall supply chain view.
If such a party, for instance the LSP, is trusted by the other supply
chain parties, the chain as a whole can possibly increase the level
of integration and act as a single entity regarding supply chain
flexibility.
Acknowledgments
Aspects of this work have been presented at the IPSERA annual
conference (April 2015). The authors would like to thank those
who attended the presentation, and reviewers of previous versions
of this manuscript, for their helpful comments. The authors would
also like to acknowledge the funding of this project provided by
the Open University and Fontys University of Applied Sciences.
The authors also wish to thank Margriet de Bakker and James
Morrison for their role in editing this paper.
Appendix A
See Table A1.
 192
Table A1
Summary of the dimensions of supply chain flexibility.

Dimension #Articles Authors

Sourcing flexibility
(Physical/Product) Supply flexibility
Supply network/base flexibility
Supplier(s) flexibility
Vendor flexibility
Purchasing flexibility
Procurement flexibility
Product development flexibility
13 Prater et al., 2001; Pujawan, 2004; Sánchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2008; Fantazy et al., 2009; Gosling et al., 2009, 2013; Singh et al., 2011; Yi et
al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a; Thomé et al., 2014
9 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Tachizawa and Thomsen, 2007; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Chiang et al., 2012;
Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a, 2014b
2 Soon and Udin, 2011; Jin et al., 2014
10 Garavelli, 2003; Sawhney, 2006; Avittathur and Swamidass, 2007; Kumar et al., 2008; Jin et al., 2010; Das, 2011; Hartmann and De Grahl, 2011; Singh et al. 2011; Malhotra and
Mackelprang, 2012; Singh and Sharma 2013; Jin et al., 2014
3 Gosling et al., 2009, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a
1 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b
2 Aprile 2005; Jin et al., 2010

J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
4 Zhang et al. 2002a, Zhang et al., 2002b; Nair 2005; Jin et al., 2010, 2014
New product flexibility 12 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon 1999; Bertrand, 2002, 2003; Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Chang et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2006; Sawhney 2006; Fantazy et al., 2009; Engelhardt-
Nowitzki, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Thomé et al 2014
New design flexibility 1 Stevenson and Spring, 2007
Product design flexibility 2 Pujawan, 2004; Chiang et al., 2012
Product prototype flexibility 1 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b
Product concept flexibility 1 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b
R&D flexibility 1 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Product modification flexibility 5 Bertrand 2002; Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Operation(s) flexibility 5 Bertrand 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Operating/Operations (system)/network 8 Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Soon and Udin, 2011; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012
flexibility
Production (capacity) flexibility 8 Bish and Muriel, 2000; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Das, 2011; Jin et al., 2010, 2014;
Manufacturing/manufacturer flexibility 15 Prater et al., 2001; Zhang and Cao, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2003, 2004; Pujawan, 2004; Nair 2005; Kumar et al., 2008; Engelhardt and
Nowitzky, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Singh and Sharma, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a, 2014b; He et al., 2014
Machine flexibility 8 Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Gong, 2008; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Kim et al., 2013
Material(s) handling flexibility 6 Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Material flexibility 1 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004
Component flexibility 1 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004
Plant flexibility 1 Avittathur and Swamidass, 2007
Internal flexibility 1 Merschmann and Thonemann, 2011
Process flexibility 8 Garavelli, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Aprile 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Chiang et al., 2012; Esmaeilikia et al.,
2014a
Routing flexibility 13 Viswanadham, 1997; Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson
and Spring, 2007; Gong, 2008; Singh et al., 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013
Reconfiguration/changeover/transforma- 3 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Wadhwa et al., 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007
tion flexibility
Resource flexibility 1 Bertrand, 2003
Equipment flexibility 2 Sawhney, 2006; Bai and Sarkis, 2013
Layout flexibility 1 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004
Sequencing flexibility 2 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Wadwha et al., 2006
Labor flexibility 9 Bertrand, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring 2007; Gong 2008; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kim et al., 2013
Worker flexibility 1 Bertrand, 2003;
Human (resource) flexibility 2 Kayis and Kara, 2005; Winkler, 2009
Program flexibility 2 Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007
Operational decision flexibility 2 Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a
Output flexibility 1 Stevenson and Spring, 2007
Volume flexibility 26 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon 1999; Vickery et al., 1999; Bertrand 2002, 2003; Zhang et al., 2002, 2003; Oke, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Feng and Yamashiro, 2005; Ndubisi
et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Chang et al., 2006; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring 2007; Arawati, 2011;
Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kemmoe et al., 2014; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a; Thomé et al., 2014
(Order) Quantity flexibility 6 Chan and Chan, 2006; Wang, 2008; Chan et al., 2009; Chung et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2010; Kim, 2011, Kim, 2012
Leadtime flexibility 1 Wang, 2008
Timing flexibility 1 Bertrand, 2002
Mix flexibility 18 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon, 1999; Bertrand, 2002, Bertrand, 2003; Zhang et al., 2002, Zhang et al., 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Chang et al., 2006; Naim et al., 2006, 2010;
Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Das, 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kemmoe et al., 2014; Thomé et al.,
2014
Product flexibility 15 Vickery et al., 1999; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Ndubisi et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Kumar et al., 2006; Naim et al.,
2006, 2010; Wadwha et al., 2006; Fantazy et al., 2009; Tang and Tomlin, 2008; Arawati, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013
Quality flexibility 1 Sawhney, 2006
Postponement flexibility 3 Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Singh et al., 2011; Thomé et al., 2014
Logistics (network) flexibility 20 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b; Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, Lummus et al., 2005; Garavelli, 2003; Aprile 2005; Closs et al., 2005; Nair 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez,
2005; Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Stevenson and Spring 2007; Kumar et al., 2008; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Soon and Udin, 2011; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Esmaeilikia et al.,
2014a, 2014b; Jin et al., 2014;
(Physical) Distribution flexibility 6 Zhang et al., 2002; Aprile 2005; Jin et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2011; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012
Delivery flexibility 18 Viswanadham, 1997; Beamon, 1999; Prater et al., 2001; Pujawan, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Naim et al., 2006, Naim et al., 2010;
Sawhney, 2006; Chan et al., 2009; Fantazy et al., 2009; Jin et al., 2010; Schütz and Tomasgard, 2011; Singh et al., 2011; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a; Thomé et al.,
2014
Due date flexibility 1 Chan et al., 2009
Transhipment flexibility 2 Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Singh et al., 2011
Transport flexibility 3 Naim et al., 2006, 2010; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a
Mode flexibility 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010
Fleet flexibility 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010

J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
Vehicle flexibility 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010
Node flexibility 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010
Link flexibility 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010
Storage flexibility 3 Schütz and Tomasgard 2011; Kemmoe et al., 2014; Esmaeilikia et al., 2014a
Order (fulfillment/variety) flexibility 3 Viswanadham, 1997; Closs et al., 2005; Jin et al., 2010
Assembler flexibility 1 Garavelli, 2003
Location flexibility 1 Kumar et al., 2008
Organizational (structure)/organization 11 Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Kayis and Kara, 2005; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Chuu, 2011, Chuu, 2014; Singh et al., 2011; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012;
network (design) flexibility Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012; Bai and Sarkis, 2013
Firm flexibility 1 Jin et al., 2010;
Inter-firm flexibility 1 Stevenson and Spring, 2009
Inter-organizational flexibilities 1 Stevenson and Spring, 2007
Relationship/relational flexibility 3 Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Thomé et al., 2014
Cultural flex. 1 Bai and Sarkis, 2013
Offering flexibility 1 Choy et al., 2008
Partnering /other party flexibility 2 Choy et al., 2008; Bai and Sarkis, 2013
Communication flex. 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010
Re-configuration flexibility 1 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Technological flexibility 2 Kayis and Kara, 2005; Winkler, 2009
Automation flexibility 1 Stevenson and Spring, 2007
Demand management flexibility 1 Zhang et al., 2002a, 2002b
Supply chain information dissemination 2 Zhang et al., 2002, 2002b, 2006
flexibility
Information systems/technology flexibility 10 Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003, 2005; Kayis and Kara, 2005; Gong, 2008; Fantazy et al., 2009; Chuu, 2011, 2014; Yi et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2012
System(s) flexibility 3 Zhang et al., 2002; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Moon et al., 2012
Spanning flexibility 3 Nair, 2005; Zhang et al., 2002, 2006
Vertical flexibility 1 Hopp et al., 2010
Strategy development flexibility 2 Zhang et al., 2002, 2006
Expansion flexibility 6 Bertrand, 2002, 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Sawhney, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Market flexibility 5 Duclos et al., 2003; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Singh et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013
Marketing flexibility 1 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Customer (oriented) flexibility 3 Das, 2011; Merschmann and Thonemann, 2011; Singh and Sharma, 2013
Launch flexibility (new product 5 Vickery et al., 1999; Ndubisi et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez 2005; Arawati 2011; Singh et al., 2011
introduction)
Responsive(ness)to target markets/re- 7 Vickery et al., 1999; Wadhwa and Rao, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2011; Thomé et al., 2014
sponse flexibility
Access (widespread distribution) 4 Vickery et al., 1999; Sanchez and Pérez Pérez, 2005; Naim et al., 2006, 2010
flexibility
Robustness (robust network) flexibility 2 Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
Temporal flexibility 2 Naim et al., 2006, 2010
Operational flexibility 6 Viswanadham, 1997; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Grawe et al., 2011; Bai and Sarkis, 2013; Kim et al., 2013; Gligor, 2014
Tactical flexibility 2 Viswanadham, 1997; Stevenson and Spring, 2007
Strategic flexibility 6 Viswanadham, 1997; Kumar and Deshmukh, 2006; Stevenson and Spring, 2007; Chiang et al., 2012; Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012; Kim et al., 2013
Structural flexibility 2 Winkler, 2009; Bai and Sarkis, 2013
Active flexibility 1 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012

193
Dormant flexibility 1 Engelhardt-Nowitzki, 2012
194 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195

Appendix B and Production Engineering 31 (6), 303–322.

See Table B1.
Table B1
Coding scheme case studies.
Main topics Subgroups
Case characteristics Organization information
Position in the chain
Function interviewee
Product information
Market information
Role logistics
Process (activities)
Flexibility Meaning/definition used
Experiences review (incl. barriers, developments)
Importance (SC/org. focus)
Moment of action
Supply chain flexibility Meaning/definition used
Experiences review (incl. barriers, developments)
Importance (SC/org. focus)
Moment of action (existence)
Goals Definition
Experiences (main goals link with flexibility)
Importance (SC/org. focus)
Moment of action
Dimensions Definition
Experience review
Importance
Moment of action (Level usage)
References
Aprile, D., Garavelli, A.C., Giannoccaro, I., 2005. Operations planning and flexibility
in a supply chain. Production Planning & Control 16 (1), 21–31.
Arawati, A., 2011. Supply chain management, supply chain flexibility and business
performance. Journal of Global Strategic Management 9, 134–145.
Avittathur, B., Swamidass, P., 2007. Matching plant flexibility and supplier flex-
ibility. Journal of Operations Management 25 (3), 717–735.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2013. Flexibility in reverse logistics. Journal of Cleaner Production
47, 306–318.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 19 (3), 275–292.
Bertrand, J.W.M., 2002. An overview of flexibility literature from the operations
management perspective. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Bertrand, J.W.M., 2003. Supply chain design: flexibility considerations. Handbooks
in OR & MS, 2003, Elsevier BV, North-Holland, pp. 133–198.
Bessant, J., Kaplinsky, R., Lamming, R., 2003. Putting supply chain learning into practice.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23 (2), 167–184.
Bish, E. and Muriel, A., 2000. Impact of manufacturing flexiblity on supply chain per-
formance. Conference on Production and Operations Manegment (POM), Sevilla.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., Cooper, M.B., 2002. Supply Chain Logistics Management.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cantor, E.D., Blackhurst, J., Pan, M., Crum, M., 2014. Examining the role of stake-
holder pressure and knowledge management on supply chain risk and demand
responsiveness. International Journal of Logistics Management 25 (1), 202–223.
Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K., 2006. A simulation study with quantity flexibility in a
supply chain subjected to uncertainties. International Journal of Computer In-
tegrated Manufacturing 19 (2), 148–160.
Chan, H.K., Wang, W.Y.C., Luong, L.H.S., Chan, F.T.S., 2009. Flexibility and adapt-
ability in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14
(6), 407–410.
Chang, S.-C., Chen, R.-H., Lin, R.-J., Tien, S.-W., Sheu, C., 2006. Supplier involvement
and manufacturing flexibility. Technovation 26 (10), 1136–1146.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management. Journal
of Operations Management 22 (2), 119–150.
Chiang, C.Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., Suresh, N., 2012. An empirical investigation of
the impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm's supply chain agility.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32 (1), 49–78.
Choy, K.L., Chow, H.K.H., Tan, K.H., Chan, C.-K., Mok, E.C.M., Wang, Q., 2008.
Leveraging the supply chain flexibility of third party logistics. Expert Systems
with Applications 35 (4), 1998–2016.
Chung, W., Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., 2010. Flexibility or Cost Saving? Decision
Sciences 41 (3), 623–650.
Chuu, S.-J., 2014. A fuzzy multi-granularity linguistic approach under group deci-
sion-making for the evaluation of supply chain flexibility. Journal of Industrial
Chuu, S.-J., 2011. Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic ap-
proach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain. European Journal of
Operational Research 213 (1), 279–289.
Clarkson, M.B.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 92–117.
Closs, D.J., Swink, M., Nair, A., 2005. The role of information connectivity in making
flexible logistics programs succesful. International Journal of Physical Dis-
tribution & Logistics Management 35 (4), 258–277.
Co, H.C., Barro, F., 2009. Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain collaboration.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29 (6), 591–611.
Das, K., 2011. Integrating effective flexibility measures into a strategic supply chain
planning model. European Journal of Operational Research 211 (1), 170–183.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2002. Systematic combining. Journal of Business Research
55 (7), 553–560.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2014. Systematic combining—A decade later. Journal of
Business Research 67 (6), 1277–1284.
Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., Lummus, R.R., 2003. A conceptual model of supply chain
flexibility. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103 (6), 446–456.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.
Ellram, L.M., Cooper, M.C., 2014. Supply chain management: It's all about the
journey, not the destination. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50 (1), 8–20.
Engelhardt-Nowitzki, C., 2012. Improving value chain flexibility and adaptability in
build-to-order environments. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 42 (4), 318–337.
Esmaeilikia, M., Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Govindan, K., Kumar, A., Mo, J., 2014a. A
tactical supply chain planning model with multiple flexibility options: an em-
pirical evaluation. Annals of Operations Research, 1–26.
Esmaeilikia, M., Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Govindan, K., Kumar, A., Mo, J., 2014b. Tac-
tical supply chain planning models with inherent flexibility. Annals of Opera-
tions Research, 1–21.
Fantazy, K.A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., 2009. An empirical study of the relationships
among strategy, flexibility, and performance in the supply chain context. Sup-
ply Chain Management: An International Journal 14 (3), 177–188.
Feng, D.-Z., Yamashiro, M., 2005. Optimal production policy for a manufacturing system
with volume flexibility in a supply chain under lumpy demand. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25 (7-8), 777–784.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management. Pitman Series in Business and Public
Policy, Marshfield.
Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration. Journal of Operations
Management 19 (2), 185–200.
Garavelli, A.C., 2003. Flexibility configurations for the supply chain management.
International Journal of Production Economics 85 (2), 141–153.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., Wicki, B., 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study?
Strategic Management Journal 29 (13), 1465–1474.
Gligor, D.M., 2014. A Cross-Disciplinary Examination of Firm Orientations’ Perfor-
mance Outcomes: the role of supply chain flexibility. Journal of Business Lo-
gistics 35 (4), 281–298.
Gong, Z., Hu, S., 2008. An economic evaluation model of product mix flexibility.
Omega 36 (5), 852–864.
Gong, Z., 2008. An economic evaluation model of supply chain flexibility. European
Journal of Operational Research 184 (2), 745–758.
Gosling, J., Purvis, L., Naim, M.M., 2009. Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of
supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics 128 (1), 11–21.
Gosling, J., Naim, M., Towill, D., 2013. A supply chain flexibility framework for en-
gineer-to-order systems. Production Planning & Control 24 (7), 552–566.
Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J., Roath, A.S., 2011. Knowledge synthesis and innovative
logistics processes: enhancing operational flexiblity and performance. Journal
of Business Logistics 32 (1), 9–80.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., Tirtiroglu, E., 2001. Performance measures and metrics in
a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 21 (1-2), 71–87.
Handfield, R.B., Nichols Jr., E.L., 2002. Supply chain redesign. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Hartmann, E.V.I., De Grahl, A., 2011. The flexibility of logistics service providers and its
impact on customer loyalty. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47 (3), 63–85.
He, Y., Keung Lai, K., Sun, H., Chen, Y., 2014. The impact of supplier integration on
customer integration and new product performance. International Journal of
Production Economics 147, 260–270.
Hopp, W.J., Iravani, S.M., Xu, W.L., 2010. Vertical flexibility in supply chains. Man-
agement Science 56 (3), 495–502.
Jin, Y., Hopkins, M.M., Wittmer, J.L.S., 2010. Linking human capital to competitive
advantages: flexibility in a manufacturing firm’s supply chain. Human Resource
Management 49 (5), 939–963.
Jin, Y., Vonderembse, M., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Smith, J.T., 2014. Exploring relationships
among IT-enabled sharing capability, supply chain flexibility, and competitive
performance. International Journal of Production Economics 153, 24–34.
Kayis, B., Kara, S., 2005. The supplier and customer contribution to manufacturing
flexibility. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16 (7), 733–752.
Kemmoe, S., Pernot, P.-A., Tchernev, N., 2014. Model for flexibility evaluation in
manufacturing network strategic planning. International Journal of Production
Research 52 (15), 4396–4411.
Ketchen, D.J., Giunipero, L.C., 2004. The intersection of strategic management and
supply chain management. Industrial Marketing Management 33 (1), 51–56.
Kim, M., Suresh, N.C., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., 2013. An impact of manufacturing
 J.H.M. Manders et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 22 (2016) 181–195
flexibility and technological dimensions of manufacturing strategy on im-
proving supply chain responsiveness. International Journal of Production Re-
search 51 (18), 5597–5611.
Kim, W.-S., 2012. A supply chain contract with flexibility as a risk-sharing me-
chanism for demand forecasting. International Journal of Systems Science 44
(6), 1134–1149.
Kim, W.-S., 2011. Order quantity flexibility as a form of customer service in a supply
chain contract model. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 23 (3), 290–315.
Koste, L.L., Malhotra, M.K., 1999. A theoretical framework for analyzing the di-
mensions of manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 18
(1), 75–93.
Krajewski, L., Wei, J.C., Tang, L.L., 2005. Responding to schedule changes in build-to-
order supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 23 (5), 452–469.
Kumar, P., Deshmukh, S.G., 2006. A model for flexible supply chain through flexible
manufacturing. Global. Journal of Flexible Systems Management 7 (3-4), 17–24.
Kumar, P., Shankar, R., Yadav, S.S., 2008. Flexibility in global supply chain. Journal of
Modelling in Management 3 (3), 277–297.
Kumar, V., Fantazy, K.A., Kumar, U., 2006. Implementation and management fra-
mework for supply chain flexibility. Journal of Enterprise Information 19 (3),
303–319.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Industrial
marketing management 29 (1), 65–83.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V., Whang, S., 1997. Information distortion in a supply
chain. Management science 43 (4), 546–558.
Lummus, R.R., Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., 2005. Delphi study on supply chain flex-
ibility. International Journal of Production Research 43 (13), 2687–2708.
Lummus, R.R., Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., 2003. Supply chain flexibility: building a
new model. Global. Journal of Flexible Systems Management 4 (4), 1–13.
Malhotra, M.K., Mackelprang, A.W., 2012. Are internal manufacturing and external
supply chain flexibilities complementary capabilities? Journal of Operations
Management 30 (3), 180–200.
Manders, J. H. M., Caniëls, M. C. J. and Ghijsen, P., 2014. Supply chain flexibility: a
systematic literature review and research directions for future research. Annual
conference IPSERA (South-Africa).
Marley, K.A., Ward, P.T., Ward, Hill, J.A., 2014. Mitigating supply chain disruptions.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19 (2), 142–152.
McCracken, G., 1988. The long interview: Qualitative research methods. Sage,
Newbury Park, California.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G., 2001.
Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2), 1–25.
Merschmann, U., Thonemann, U.W., 2011. Supply chain flexibility, uncertainty and firm
performance. International Journal of Production Economics 130 (1), 43–53.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Moon, K.K.-L., Yi, C.Y., Ngai, E.W.T., 2012. An instrument for measuring supply chain
flexibility for the textile and clothing companies. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research 222 (2), 191–203.
Naim, M.M., Potter, A.T., Mason, R.J., Bateman, N., 2006. The role of transport
flexibility in logistics provision. The International Journal of Logistics Man-
agement 17 (3), 297–311.
Naim, M., Aryee, G., Potter, A., 2010. Determining a logistics provider’s flexibility
capability. International Journal of Production Economics 127 (1), 39–45.
Nair, A., 2005. Linking manufacturing postponement, centralized distribution and
value chain flexibility with performance. International Journal of Production
Research 43 (3), 447–463.
Ndubisi, N.O., Jantan, M., Hing, L.C., Ayub, M.S., 2005. Supplier selection and man-
agement strategies and manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Enterprise In-
formation Management 18 (3), 330–349.
Oke, A., 2003. Drivers of volume flexibility requirements in manufacturing plants.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23 (12),
1497–1513.
Prajogo, D., Olhager, J., 2012. Supply chain integration and performance. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 135 (1), 514–522.
Prater, E., Biehl, M., Smith, M.A., 2001. International supply chain agility: tradeoffs
between flexibility and uncertainty. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 21 (5-6), 823–839.
Pujawan, I.N., 2004. Assessing supply chain flexibility. International Journal of In-
tegrated Supply Management 1 (1), 79–97.
Reichart, A., 2007. Supply chain flexibility. Judge business school, University of
Cambridge, pp. 1–42.
Sánchez, A.M., Pérez Pérez, M., 2005. Supply chain flexibility and firm performance.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (7), 681–700.
Sandberg, E., 2007. Logistics collaboration in supply chains. International Journal of
Logistics Management 18 (2), 274–293.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., Adenso-Diaz, B., 2010. Stakeholder pressure and the
adoption of environmental practices. Journal of Operations Management 28 (2),
163–176.
Sawhney, R., 2006. Interplay between uncertainty and flexibility across the value-
chain. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 476–493.
Schmenner, R.W., Tatikonda, M.V., 2005. Manufacturing process flexibility revisited.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (12),
1183–1189.
Schütz, P., Tomasgard, A., 2011. The impact of flexibility on operational supply chain
195
planning. International Journal of Production Economics 134 (2), 300–311.
Sethi, A.K., Sethi, S.P., 1990. Flexibility in manufacturing. International Journal of
Flexible Manufacturing Systems 2 (4), 289–328.
Singh, D., Oberoi, J.S., Ahuja, I.S., 2011. A survey of literature of conceptual frame-
works assessing supply chain flexibility. International Journal of Applied En-
gineering Research 2 (1), 172.
Singh, R.K., Sharma, M.K., 2013. Prioritising the alternatives for flexibility in supply
chains. Production Planning & Control 25 (2), 176–192.
Skintzi, G.D., 2007. Supply chain design. Athens University of Economics and
Business, Athens, Greece.
Soon, Q.H., Udin, Z.M., 2011. Supply chain management from the perspective of
value chain flexibility. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22
(4), 505–526.
Stevenson, M., Spring, M., 2007. Flexibility from a supply chain perspective. Inter-
national Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (7), 685–713.
Stevenson, M., Spring, M., 2009. Supply chain flexibility. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 29 (9), 946–971.
Swafford, P., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N., 2000. A model of global supply chain agility
and its impact on competitive performance. 31st National DSI Meeting,
1037–1039.
Tachizawa, E.M., Thomsen, C.G., 2007. Drivers and sources of supply flexibility.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (10),
1115–1136.
Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R., Handfield, R.B., 1998. Supply chain management: supplier
performance and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management 34
(3), 2–9.
Tang, C., Tomlin, B., 2008. The Power of Flexibility for Mitigating Supply Chain Risks.
UCLA Anderson School, Los Angeles.
Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Pires, S.R., Ceryno, P., Klingebiel, K., 2014. A multi-tier
study on supply chain flexibility in the automotive industry. International
Journal of Production Economics 158, 91–105.
Thorelli, H.B., 1986. Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Man-
agement Journal 7, 37–51.
Upton, D.M., 1994. The management of manufacturing flexibility. California man-
agement review 36 (2), 72–89.
Upton, D.M., 1995. Flexibility as process mobility. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 12 (3-4), 205–224.
Vickery, S.N., Calantone, R., Droge, C., 1999. Supply chain flexibility. The Journal of
Supply Chain Management 35 (3), 16–24.
Viswanadham, N., Srinivasa Raghavan, N., 1997. Flexibility in manufacturing en-
terprises. Sadhana (Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences), Indian
Academy of Sciences, 135–163.
Vokurka, R.J., O'Leary-Kelly, S.W., 2000. A review of empirical research on manu-
facturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 18 (4), 485–501.
Volberda, H.W., 2009. De flexibele onderneming. Kluwer, Deventer.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M., 2002. Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22 (2), 195–219.
Wadhwa, S., Rao, K.S., 2003. Enterprise modeling of supply chains involving mul-
tiple entity flows. Studies in informatics and control 12 (1), 5–20.
Wadhwa, S., Rao, K.S., 2004. A unified framework for manufacturing and supply
chain flexibility. Global. Journal of Flexible Systems Management 5 (1), 29–36.
Wadhwa, S., Rao, K.S., Chan, F.T.S., 2006. Comparative influence of three flexibility
types on manufacturing lead-time performance. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29 (9-10), 1002–1007.
Wang, J., 2010. Supply Chain Optimization, Management and Integration. IGI Glo-
bal, Hersey, New York.
Wang, Y.-C., 2008. Evaluating flexibility on order quantity and delivery lead time for
a supply chain system. International Journal of Systems Science 39 (12),
1193–1202.
Winkler, H., 2009. How to improve supply chain flexibility using strategic supply
chain networks. Logistics Research 1 (1), 15–25.
Yi, C.Y., Ngai, E.W.T., Moon, K.L., 2011. Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain en-
vironment. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16 (4),
271–283.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Zhang, Q., Cao, M., 2002. Business process reengineering for flexibility and in-
novation in manufacturing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 102 (3),
146–152.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2002a. Value chain flexibility. International
Journal of Production Research 40 (3), 561–583.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2002b. Product development flexibility.
Arkansas State University and The university of Toledo.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2003. Manufacturing flexibility. Journal of
Operations Management 21 (2), 173–191.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2005. Logistics flexibility and its impact on
customer satisfaction. The International Journal of Logistics Management 16
(1), 71–95.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2006. Spanning flexibility. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 1 (5), 390–399.
Zsidisin, G.A., Hartley, J.L., Bernardes, E.S., Saunders, L.W., 2015. Examining supply
market scanning and internal communication climate as facilitators of supply
chain integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20 (5),
549–560.