4.6 Article

Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.005

关键词

Supply chain ambidexterity; Small and medium-sized firms; Supply chain management; Network capability; Strategic information flow

资金

  1. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes, FIMECC S4Fleet programs)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organizational ambidexterity is the simultaneous act of exploiting existing competences and exploring new opportunities. Prior studies suggest that resource-constrained SMEs cannot successfully pursue simultaneous interorganizational ambidexterity but need to rely on functionally separated alliances (i.e., alliances based on their value chain function such as explorative R&D alliances or exploitative commercialization alliances) to achieve ambidexterity. Yet, others propose that ambidexterity can occur within the functional domain of a supply chain. We investigate the relationships among supply chain ambidexterity, network capabilities, strategic information flow, and firm performance. In a sample of manufacturing SMEs in Sweden, we hypothesize the direct association between supply chain ambidexterity and performance and the moderating effect of network capabilities and strategic information flow. By testing our hypotheses in a sample of 200 manufacturing SMEs, we show that supply chain ambidexterity decreases firm performance; however, network capabilities and strategic information flow with their supply chain partners help mitigate this negative relationship. The present study advances understanding of ambidextrous interorganizational collaboration and alliances in general and supply chain ambidexterity of manufacturing SMEs in particular. In contexts where supply chain ambidexterity is negatively associated with performance, network capabilities and strategic information flow may be necessary to lower the negative effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据