The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0960-0035.htm

Supply chain agility: a systematic Supply chain

agility
review of definitions, enablers and
performance implications
Eias Al Humdan 287
Department of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Received 18 June 2019
Yangyan Shi Revised 26 November 2019
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, 24 March 2020
Accepted 30 March 2020
Beijing, China;
Department of Management, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University,
Sydney, Australia and
Department of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and
Masud Behnia
Department of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Supply chain agility (SCA) has recently received considerable attention in the literature and in
practice. Despite its popularity, the concept of SCA seems to be vaguely defined and loosely structured. More
specifically, definitional ambiguity and conceptual fragmentation have prevented the concept of SCA from
reaching its full potential. The time is ripe to address these issues through a systematic literature review.
Design/methodology/approach – A review and synthesis of the literature on SCA was undertaken. The
authors selected 56 top-tier related articles for further analysis after applying rigorous filtering procedures.
Findings – The results of the review confirm that several key themes surround SCA’s definition and enablers.
In addition, consensus needs to be reached in terms of its performance dimensions and measures. Accordingly,
this study constructed an encompassing definition, scrutinized SCA enablers and outcomes and thus developed
an original framework for SCA, providing a unique conceptual contribution. Several research directions were
also addressed accordingly.
Originality/value – The novelty of this research lies in the selection of highly recognized publications. It also
provides an encompassing definition of SCA, consolidates its enablers for better communication and
synthesizes its performance implications.
Keywords Supply chain agility, Review, Definition, Enablers, Performance implications
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
For almost two decades, considerable attention has been paid to the concept of supply chain
agility (SCA) as a driver of success and a sign of competitive advantage of a firm (e.g. Gligor
et al., 2013; Ismail and Sharifi, 2006). SCA is considered to be one of the fundamental
characteristics of successful supply chains in today’s turbulent and increasingly competitive
environment (Agarwal et al., 2007; Al-Shboul, 2017; Aslam et al., 2018; Braunscheidel and
Suresh, 2009), especially in global markets (Lee, 2004), because firms with agile supply chains
(ASCs) can react and respond more competitively to unforeseen changes in the business
environment due to their ability to synchronize the supply with the demand better than their
competitors (Dubey et al., 2018; Swafford et al., 2008).
Despite its popularity, the concept of SCA seems to be vaguely defined and loosely International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics
structured (Gligor et al., 2013; Li et al., 2008). Some authors have defined it in operational terms Management
(e.g. Brusset, 2016; Yang, 2014), some as a management philosophy (e.g. Li et al., 2006; Van Vol. 50 No. 2, 2020
pp. 287-312
Hoek et al., 2001; Calatayud et al., 2019) and others in terms of strategy (e.g. Bal et al., 1999; © Emerald Publishing Limited
0960-0035
Fayezi et al., 2016). Moreover, the specific concept of SCA has emerged in the literature as a DOI 10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2019-0192
IJPDLM result of drawing on the various perspectives of “agility” that have been developed within the
50,2 various disciplines to which the broad concept of agility is relevant. In fact, some researchers
have commented on the multidisciplinary nature of SCA (e.g. Braunscheidel and Suresh,
2009; Gligor et al., 2013; Li et al., 2008; Swafford et al., 2006; Russell and Swanson, 2019). This
disparate nature of the SCA literature, spread across many fields and the broad notion of
what the concept means have led some scholars to echo the problem of determining what
exactly constitutes SCA (e.g. Gligor et al., 2013; Li et al., 2008). Consequently, theory
288 development in the field of SCA has suffered from an ill-defined paradigm in which neither
the definition nor the enablers or the outcomes of the construct are clear or agreed upon
among scholars and practitioners. If the field of SCA is to continue to grow and advance
theoretically, the time is ripe to address these issues.
The purpose of this study is threefold. First, it aims to compare and contrast the existing
definitions to develop a complete and encompassing one, suitable for advancing the theory
and practice in this field. Second, the research intends to extract and analyse the enablers of
SCA to gain consolidated insights into what makes supply chains agile. Third, it aims to
explore the performance implications of SCA to understand the scope of the benefits accruing
to firms that pursue SCA. To this end, a systematic review of 56 studies from 17 journals will
be performed following the procedures outlined by Moher et al. (2009) and Tranfield et al.
(2003). This review is believed to be prominent because SCA is a developing field of research
that has resulted in several different conceptualizations and has led to mixed research
outcomes. As such, by tracking its progress across various disciplines, a consensus regarding
SCA’s main themes is expected to be reached that can lead to a better formulation of a state-of-
the-art conceptual framework.
Although few literature reviews were found in this domain, this study is different in many
ways. For example, Sharma et al. (2017) discussed SCA by reviewing its literature in different
categories. While the previous review developed an SCA definition based on facets of
previously addressed definitions, this study will cultivate a definition based on four major
themes shared by previously highly cited definitions. The study will end by synthesizing the
performance implications of SCA by addressing when and why SCA matters. What makes this
study unique is the projection of all the shortcomings of the current literature, leading it to
address all the possible avenues to advance the field. Due to the constant changes that a field of
research exhibits, investigating the corpus of a body of research frequently remains essential.
Another review performed by Fayezi et al. (2016) tackled the evolution and development of SCA
by deciphering the ambiguity surrounded agility and flexibility in the supply chain. Although
these studies have addressed different yet limited aspects of the SCA field, there is still a lack of
scholarly research identifying the factors necessary to achieve SCA and its performance effects
(Eckstein et al., 2015; Sangari and Razmi, 2015). Additionally, the focus of the previous studies
is limited to a few directions, making the contribution of this paper uniquely comprehensive.
This study complements the previous reviews and broadens their scope by combing the SCA
literature from different angles. This manuscript reports the results of the analysis and is
organized as follows. The next section describes the methodological approach of the research
and briefly addresses the studies selected for review. Next, after addressing the descriptive
analysis of the core studies, a thematic analysis of these studies enables the development of a
new definition of SCA and reveals its enablers and performance implications. The paper
concludes with a discussion of these findings and directions for future research.

Methodology
Literature reviews aim to map and evaluate a body of literature and identify potential
research gaps, highlighting the boundaries of knowledge (Tranfield et al., 2003). Systematic
literature reviews are completed through an iterative process of defining an appropriate
search string, searching the literature and finalizing the analysis.
 The systematic search for relevant articles started with the identification of keywords and Supply chain
keyword search strings (Tranfield et al., 2003). To obtain broader exposure and minimize the agility
threat of missing relevant studies, a search string was developed taking into account the
following issues:
(1) While some scholars have used the term “supply chain agility”, others have
approached the same meaning by utilizing the term “agile supply chain” (ASC).
(2) Many articles have discussed SCA as a distinct supply chain strategy combined with 289
the “leanness” strategy termed “leagility” or “leagile”.
(3) Some articles have deployed the word “chain” or “chains” while discussing SCA.
Consequently, it was decided to use the search string “supply chain agility” OR “agile supply
chain*” OR “supply chain leagility” OR “leagile supply chain*”. Then, following the rationale
of Denyer and Tranfield (2009), the study only included peer-reviewed journal articles written
in English and listed in two databases: the Web of Science and ABI INFORM/Global. The
databases were scanned for the defined search strings with no time limit to ensure wider
exposure; thus, articles were retrieved from the first article’s appearance in 1999 until
December 2018 to ensure that the study addressed the most current developments in the SCA
literature.
Table 1 depicts the details of this phase. For the next phase, 279 articles were nominated.
The management of the references was conducted via the reference management software
EndNote X9.
As a gauge of the selection, a test of the relevance of the retrieved articles was performed
through a three-level filtering process following Thome et al. (2016).
(1) The level 1 filter
Articles were first assessed based on their titles, with an inclusive orientation. If a title held
limited information to judge the article’s relevance, it was included. The aim in this filtering
level was to include the least likely articles in case they might contain relevant data. In this
first screening process, 257 articles were identified.
(2) The level 2 filter
All the remaining 257 articles’ abstracts and keywords were carefully scrutinized. Articles’
applicability was emphasized by requiring the existence of the concept of SCA or ACS in
either the abstract or the keywords. Following this second filtering level, 152 articles
remained.
(3) The level 3 filter
Articles’ substantive applicability was emphasized in this level by thoroughly reading the
entire document to create an alignment between the selection of papers and the objectives of
the study. Articles in which SCA was a very ancillary part of the article’s focus were excluded.

Search string: “supply chain agility” OR “agile supply chain*” OR “supply chain leagility” OR “leagile supply
chain*”

Database Search in Retrieved Records

Web of Science Topic 239
ABI/INFORM Global Abstract, titles and keywords 125 Table 1.
TOTAL 364 Database search
TOTAL after eliminating duplications 279 results
IJPDLM 50 records were excluded due to their lack of relevance to the research topic, leaving a total of
50,2 102 articles.
Since the databases might not have captured all the related papers, a backward
snowballing approach was conducted from the reference lists to look for scholars’ seminal
works related to SCA. The snowballing approach is a common method to complement a
systematic review in identifying missing primary papers (Thome et al., 2016; Wohlin, 2016).
Consequently, 10 articles were added manually to ensure the accuracy and
290 comprehensiveness of the review (Bal et al., 1999; Dwayne Whitten et al., 2012; Fayezi
et al., 2016; Lee, 2002, 2004; Li et al., 2006; Naylor et al., 1999; Power et al., 2001; Qrunfleh and
Tarafdar, 2014; Tarafdar and Qrunfleh, 2016). The aforementioned steps resulted in a total
database of 112 peer-reviewed journal papers. Finally, to ensure rigour, the study used the
Australian Business Deans Council’s (ABDC) Quality Journal List 2016 and selected records
published in A- and A*-level journals. Although there are numerous journal articles metrics,
such as 5YIF, VHB, SJR, JIF, SNIP and ES AI, the ABDC ranking is a well-known and a
globally recognized gauge, especially within the business and management fields. An
additional set of 56 records was removed in this phase.
Figure 1 shows a flow diagram adopted from Moher et al. (2009) to illustrate the search
retrieval findings known as PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses).

INITIAL DATABASES EXCLUDED

PAPERS (65) Duplicates
SEARCH
(344 articles)

FILTER ONE: Titles are not

EXCLUDED
Titles screened aligned with
PAPERS (22)
(279 articles) objectives

FILTER TWO: Abstracts and

EXCLUDED
Abstracts and keywords screened keywords are not
(257 articles)
PAPERS (105)
aligned with
objectives

FILTER THREE:
EXCLUDED Articles are not
Entire documents screened
PAPERS (50) aligned with
(152 articles)
objectives
SNOWBALLING
ADDED PAPERS
(10 articles)
JOURNAL-BASED RANKING Only highly
Based on ABDC quality list
EXCLUDED
PAPERS (56) ranked articles
(112 articles)
selected

Figure 1.
PRISMA diagram PAPERS FOR SYNTHESIS
(search and selection
process) (56 articles)
Description of the records Supply chain
The 56 papers identified were analysed in this phase with respect to annual publications, agility
types of methodology, locations and core journals to understand the trend in this body of
literature. As shown in Figure 2, the articles range from 1999 to 2018, with more than half
(57%) being from 2012 or later. Overall, this current increasing trend in quality publications
highlights the awareness and importance of SCA among researchers and professionals.
Shifting the attention to methodology types, the qualitative design using the case study
methodology was the least frequently used methodology, accounting for almost 2% of 291
papers. While the conceptual type of research methodology was dominant in the early stages
of SCA publications (1999–2006), the quantitative design was the most frequently used
afterwards and as a whole. This affirms the fact that, during the primary years in the
development of any new area, conceptual work plays an important role in terms of defining
concepts, identifying factors and constructing frameworks, followed by empirical work.
SCA is implemented in a global scenario in different countries, as is evident in Figure 3,
with the US taking the lion’s share of top SCA research. This opens the possibility to enquire
about SCA in more European and emerging economics. SCA has a wide international appeal,
being conducted across a wide range of industries, including electronics (Tse et al., 2016; Wu
et al., 2017), oil and gas (Yusuf et al., 2014), fashion and textiles (Chan et al., 2017; Ngai et al.,
2011), auto components (Dubey et al., 2018), telecommunications (Collin and Lorenzin, 2006)
and various manufacturing industries (Al-Shboul, 2017; Blome et al., 2013; DeGroote and
Marx, 2013; Khan et al., 2009; Kim and Chai, 2017; Swafford et al., 2008; Um, 2017; Yang, 2014).
As evidenced by the analysis of articles according to journals and according to the
Association of Business School (ABS) categories [1], they have been published in a wide range
of journals. The selected articles were taken from 17 highly ranked academic journals (15
research-oriented and 2 practitioner-oriented journals: HBR and CMR) over 5 broad
disciplines. While there is a strong emphasis on operations and supply chain management
journals, as would be expected, this also illustrates the multidisciplinary approach required in

2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999 Figure 2.
Dispersion of articles
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
over years and
methodology
Conceptual Case Study Empirical
IJPDLM 9
50,2 8
7
6
5
292 4
3
2
1
Figure 3. 0
Dispersion of SCA
studies across
countries

a systematic review (Tranfield et al., 2003), with journals crossing information management,
strategy and marketing. This highlights the need to consider the cross-disciplinary
perspective in systematic reviews and shows the different ways in which the research topic
has been approached (Tranfield et al., 2003). Table 2 lists the 17 journals, their corresponding
ABS category, the number of articles per journal and the percentage of total articles.

Analysis and synthesis

Defining SCA
SCA is the level of agility demonstrated by a supply chain. Agility, in its broadest sense, is the
ability of an entity to respond to changes in a timely manner. ASCs maintain their
competitiveness through flexibility and responsiveness (Bal et al., 1999; Dubey et al., 2018;
Gligor et al., 2013). SCA emerged as a field of research in 1999 (e.g. Bal et al., 1999; Mason-Jones
and Towill, 1999; Naylor et al., 1999). The authors extracted 25 definitions from the selected
articles and analysed them from these four perspectives. Table 3 shows a chronological
summary of this analysis.
Four themes of this challenge are noteworthy and help in reducing the ambiguity
surrounding the concept of SCA: (1) speed, (2) the scope of agility, (3) the mode of agility and
(4) the outcome of agility.
SCA incorporates speed, and a relative agreement can be recognized in grasping this
feature by utilizing it in almost 70% (18) of the selected definitions. In fact, agility per se
means moving about quickly and easily, according to the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-
Webster [2]. Since the birth of SCA, authors have always envisaged speed by considering the
“information lead time”, which must constantly be reduced among chain members to cope
with the rate of the current change.
With regard to the scope of responsiveness, in 12 definitions, responsiveness to changes in
the demand conditions (i.e. variety, volume, value) has been the scope of agility (Bal et al.,
1999; Christopher, 2000; Naylor et al., 1999; Ngai et al., 2011; Prater et al., 2001; Yang, 2014).
The rest have acknowledged the importance of both demand and supply for the agility of a
supply chain (Brusset, 2016; Dubey et al., 2018; Fayezi et al., 2016). Given that managing
modern supply chains involves the coordination of activities on both the demand and the
supply side focusing only on the demand is short sighted and hampers the competitiveness of
a firm on the supply side of its operations.
 No. of Percentage of
Supply chain
SR ABS category Journals articles total articles agility
1 Operations and technology International Journal of Production 11 19.6
management Economics
2 Supply Chain Management: An 8 14.2
International Journal
3 International Journal of Production 7 12.5 293
Research
4 International Journal of Operations 5 8.9
and Production Management
5 International Journal of Logistics 5 8.9
Management
6 International Journal of Physical 3 5.4
Distribution and Logistics
Management
7 Journal of Operations Management 3 5.4
8 Journal of Business Logistics 2 3.6
9 Marketing Industrial Marketing Management 2 3.6
10 Operations research and European Journal of Operational 2 3.6
management science Research
11 Decision Sciences 1 1.8
12 Information management International Journal of Information 2 3.6
Management
13 Decision Support Systems 1 1.8
14 Journal of Strategic Information 1 1.8
Systems
15 General management, ethics International Journal of Management 1 1.8
and social responsibility Reviews
16 Harvard Business Review 1 1.8 Table 2.
17 California Management Review 1 1.8 Distribution of articles
Total 56 100 per journal and field

With respect to the mode of agility, prior studies have suggested that sensing and responding
to changes in the demand and supply can be undertaken either proactively or reactively, that
is, the capability to adjust a firm’s supply chain in anticipation of change or in response to
change, respectively. This view leads to three different ways of defining SCA: (1) agility as
proactive responsiveness, (2) agility as reactive responsiveness and (3) agility as mixed
proactive and reactive responsiveness.
The reactive mode is the dominant perspective in the majority of definitions, whereas the
solely proactive mode does not appear in the existing definitions. However, the mixed mode is
used in five definitions (e.g. Dubey et al., 2018; Fayezi et al., 2015, 2016; Gligor et al., 2013; Li
et al., 2008). Reactive responsiveness has been considered to comprise a defensive mechanism
that is mainly pursued in response to a threat (Gligor et al., 2013). Proactive responsiveness,
on the other hand, has been associated with opportunity-seeking tendencies, especially
disruptive ones (Naylor et al., 1999), as well as with terms such as “alertness” (Li et al., 2008)
and “predictive capacity” (Fayezi et al., 2015).
Finally, the outcomes of SCA have rarely been utilized in definitions. Ultimately, the goal of
SCA is to achieve greater profitability to sustain competitiveness (Lee, 2004; Li et al., 2008;
Swafford et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2017). It is believed that a definition with an indication to an
outcome is more appealing and has more added value and thus will be more accepted.
Although SCA may not necessarily be associated with the lowest cost, especially when
comparing it with lean supply chains (Gligor et al., 2015; Jain et al., 2008; Qrunfleh and
IJPDLM SR Source Definition Speed Mode Scope Outcome
50,2
1 Bal et al. (1999) The basis for achieving Reactive Demand Achieving a
a competitive competitive
advantage in changing advantage
market conditions
2 Naylor et al. Using market Reactive Demand
294 (1999) knowledge and a virtual
corporation to exploit
profitable opportunities
in a volatile marketplace
3 Christopher A business-wide Rapidly Reactive Demand
(2000) capability that
embraces the
organizational
structure, information
systems, logistics
processes and, in
particular, mindsets.
The ability of an
organization to respond
rapidly to changes in
demand in terms of both
volume and variety
4 Van Hoek et al. An emerging Reactive Demand
(2001) management concept
centred on the response
to dynamic and
turbulent markets and
customer demands
5 Prater et al. (2001) The degree to which a Speed Reactive Demand
firm’ s supply chain is and
agile is determined by supply
the way in which its
physical components
(i.e. sourcing,
manufacturing and
delivery) are configured
to incorporate speed
and flexibility
6 Lee (2002) Supply chains that Reactive Demand
utilize strategies aimed
at being responsive and
flexible to customer
needs
7 Yusufet al.(2004) The ability to respond, In real Reactive Demand
in real time, to the time
unique needs of
customers and markets
8 Lee (2004) The ability to respond to Quickly Reactive Demand
short-term changes in or supply
demand or supply
quickly and handle
external disruptions
Table 3. smoothly
Existing definitions
of SCA (continued )
SR Source Definition Speed Mode Scope Outcome
Supply chain
agility
9 Swafford et al. The supply chain Speedy Reactive Demand
(2006) capability to adapt or manner and
respond in a speedy Supply
manner to a changing
marketplace
environment 295
10 Lin et al. . (2006) A structure with the Reactive Demand Satisfying
goals of satisfying customers
customers and and
employees within which employees
every organization can
design its own business
strategies, organization,
processes and
information systems
11 Ismail and Sharifi The ability of the supply Rapidly Reactive Demand
(2006) chain and its members
as a whole to align the
network and its
operations rapidly to
dynamic and turbulent
requirements of the
demand network
12 Baramichai et al. An integration of Rapidly Reactive Demand
(2007) business partners to
enable new
competencies to
respond to rapidly
changing, continually
fragmenting markets
13 Jain et al. . (2008b) The capability to Quickly Reactive Demand
survive and prosper by and
reacting quickly and supply
effectively to changing
markets. It concerns
change, uncertainty and
unpredictability within
its business
environment and makes
appropriate responses
to changes
14 Li et al. (2008) The result of integrating Timely Reactive Demand
alertness to internal and manner and and
environmental change proactive supply
(opportunities/
challenges) with a
capability to use
resources in responding
(proactively/reactively)
to such changes, all in a
timely and flexible
manner

(continued ) Table 3.
IJPDLM SR Source Definition Speed Mode Scope Outcome
50,2
15 Braunscheidel The capability of the Speedy Reactive Demand
and Suresh (2009) firm, both internally and manner and
in conjunction with its supply
key suppliers and
customers, to adapt or
296 respond in a speedy
manner to marketplace
changes as well as to
potential and actual
disruptions,
contributing to the
agility of the extended
supply chain
16 Ngai et al. (2011) The capability of an Reactive Demand
organization to respond
to the market changes
visible to customers
using a set of supply
chain competencies that
enable such capability
17 Gligor and The supply chain’s Quickly Reactive Demand
Holcomb (2012a) ability to adjust its and
tactics and operations supply
quickly
18 Gligor et al. (2013) A firm’s supply chain Quickly - Reactive Demand
agility is manifested Swiftness and and
through the firm ’s proactive supply
cognitive and physical
capabilities that enable
the firm to detect
changes, opportunities
and threats quickly
(alertness), access
relevant data
(accessibility), make
resolute decisions on
how to act
(decisiveness), quickly
implement decisions
(swiftness) and modify
its range of supply
chain tactics and
operations to the extent
needed to implement the
firm’s strategy
(flexibility)
19 Yang (2014) An operational and Quick Reactive Demand
relational capability to
make quick responses
to uncertain and
turbulent markets

Table 3. (continued )
SR Source Definition Speed Mode Scope Outcome
Supply chain
agility
20 Eckstein et al. The ability of the firm to Rapidly Reactive Demand
(2015) sense short-term, and
temporary changes in supply
the supply chain and
market environment
(e.g. demand 297
fluctuations, supply
disruptions and
changes in suppliers’
delivery times) and to
respond rapidly and
flexibly to those
changes with the
existing supply chain
(e.g. reducing
replacement times of
materials, reducing
manufacturing
throughput times and
adjusting delivery
capacities)
21 Fayezi et al. (2015) A compilation of Quickly Reactive Demand Fulfil end-
mindset, intelligence and and customer
and process across proactive supply requirement
supply chain
organizations that
enables organizations to
respond quickly to the
environmental
uncertainties and
changes in a reactive,
proactive and,
ultimately, predictive
manner by relying on
their relationship
integration to fulfil end-
customer requirements
22 Tarafdar and Supply chain strategy Quick Reactive Demand
Qrunfleh (2016) that is directed towards
quick and effective
responses to changing
customer needs
23 Fayezi et al. (2016) A strategic ability that Rapidly Reactive Demand
assists organizations to and and
sense and respond proactive supply
rapidly to internal and
external uncertainties
via effective integration
of supply chain
relationships

(continued ) Table 3.
IJPDLM SR Source Definition Speed Mode Scope Outcome
50,2
24 Brusset (2016) An operational Reactive Demand
capability stemming and
from the ability to supply
manage across
networks’ demand-side
298 and supply-side
processes, systems and
routines
25 Dubey et al. (2018) The property of a Rapidly Reactive Demand
supply chain that and and
enables it to sense short- proactive supply
term, temporary
changes in the supply
chain and market
environment and
respond flexibly and
Table 3. rapidly to these changes

Tarafdar, 2013; Van Hoek et al., 2001; Yusuf et al., 2004), this study stresses the fact that there
would be no room for boosting sales and financial performance and thus maintaining
competitiveness if the achievement of agility were to incur significant expenses.

Enablers of SCA
The analysis of the factors that affect the attainment of SCA identified inconsistency in the
body of terminologies used by studies. While some called them capabilities (Van Hoek et al.,
2001; Yusuf et al., 2004), others referred to them as enablers (Baramichai et al., 2007; Gligor,
2014; Ngai et al., 2011), antecedents (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Gligor and Holcomb,
2012a; Swafford et al., 2006), drivers (Chiang et al., 2012), determinants (Sangari and Razmi,
2015) or even critical success factors (CSFs) (Power et al., 2001). For consistency and
simplicity, this study calls these factors enablers of SCA.
A central theme in understanding the enablers of SCA has been the study of proactive
SCA and reactive SCA separately, which has been justified by the fact that proactive and
reactive SCA are based on two different logics and hence are enabled by different factors or at
least a combination of factors. While proactive enablers act as preventive mechanisms and
risk alleviators in anticipating possible opportunities or threats (Braunscheidel and Suresh,
2009; Tse et al., 2016), reactive enablers are defensive mechanisms that enable the supply
chain to respond to events after they have happened (Christopher, 2000; Lee, 2004; Swafford
et al., 2008). Consistent with this theme, this systematic review clustered SCA enablers into 11
top enablers across various scholars after comprehensively synthesizing all the enablers. The
study categorized them as exclusively proactive (P), exclusively reactive (R) and common (C)
to both proactive and reactive SCA. Table 4 summarizes these enablers. The proactive
enablers are mainly concerned with the supply side of the supply chain. They are also centred
on detecting changes in markets and in harmonizing operational capabilities. Within the
proactive enablers, four enablers are meant to help recognize change, namely:
(1) Market sensitivity
(2) Strategic sourcing
(3) Organizational change culture
(4) Strategic operational alignment
 Type of
Supply chain
SCA enablers Supporting references enablers agility
Market sensitivity: being alert to capture Aslam et al. (2018); Christopher (2000); P
market information DeGroote and Marx (2013); Eckstein et al.
(2015); Gligor et al. (2013); Li et al. (2006, 2008);
Van Hoek et al. (2001); Vinodh et al. (2011)
Sourcing strategies: selecting and involving Chiang et al. (2012); Christopher (2000); Ismail P 299
key suppliers to maintain innovativeness and Sharifi (2006); Jain et al. (2008); Kim and
Chai (2017); Power et al. (2001)
Culture of change: embracing change and Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009); Jain et al. P
learning through continuous improvement, (2008); Ngai et al. (2011); Power et al. (2001);
top management support and staff Tse et al. (2016); Vinodh et al. (2011); Yusuf
empowerment et al. (2014)
Operational alignment: enhancing operational Agarwal et al. (2007); Blome et al. (2013); P
capabilities through production planning, Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009); Brusset
process integration, managing inventory and (2016); Chiang et al. (2012); Christopher (2000);
postponement Collin and Lorenzin (2006); Ismail and Sharifi
(2006); Lee (2002, 2004); Naylor et al. (1999);
Ngai et al. (2011); Prater et al. (2001); Qrunfleh
and Tarafdar (2013); Tarafdar and Qrunfleh
(2016); Um (2017); Van Hoek et al. (2001);
Vinodh et al. (2011); Wu et al. (2017); Yang
(2014)
Supportive information technology: adoption Bal et al. (1999); Brusset (2016); Chiang et al. C
of IT and IS tools to boost connectivity (2012); Christopher (2000); DeGroote and Marx
amongst members (2013); Ismail and Sharifi (2006); Jain et al.
(2008); Khan et al. (2009); Lee (2002); Li et al.
(2006); Liu et al. (2013); Ngai et al. (2011); Power
et al. (2001); Sangari and Razmi (2015);
Swafford et al. (2008); Vinodh et al. (2011);
White et al. (2005); Yang (2014); Yusuf et al.
(2004)
Collaborative relationship: sharing beliefs, Baramichai et al. (2007); Braunscheidel and C
information and resources across members Suresh (2009); Chiang et al. (2012); Christopher
(2000); Dubey et al. (2018); Gligor and Holcomb
(2012a, 2012b); Gligor et al. (2013); Ismail and
Sharifi (2006); Jain et al. (2008); Kim and Chai
(2017); Lee (2002, 2004); Li et al. (2006); Lin et al.
(2006); Mason-Jones and Towill (1999); Naylor
et al. (1999); Sangari and Razmi (2015); Tse
et al. (2016); Um (2017); Vinodh et al. (2011);
Yang (2014); Yusuf et al. (2014)
Logistics and distribution capabilities: Al-Shboul (2017); Gligor and Holcomb (2014); C
building collaborative distribution practices to Gligor and Holcomb (2012b); Khan et al. (2009);
minimize vulnerabilities Lee (2004)
Strategic flexibility: adapting the SC in the Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009); Chan et al. R
face of market changes with minimal penalty (2017); Chiang et al. (2012); Eckstein et al.
(2015); Fayezi et al. (2016); Gligor et al. (2013);
Khan et al. (2009); Prater et al. (2001); Swafford
et al. (2006, 2008)
Demand management: manipulating Blome et al. (2013); Collin and Lorenzin (2006); R
customer demand through pricing and Gligor (2014); Gligor and Holcomb (2012b,
customer service 2014)
Contingency planning: forming back-up teams Lee (2004) R
to tackle disruptions
Strategic orientation: aligning collective Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009); Gligor et al. R Table 4.
capabilities (2016) Enablers of SCA
IJPDLM Reactive enablers are effect oriented, aimed at countering the consequences of unanticipated
50,2 incidents. Accordingly, SCA should be designed in such a way that the consequences of an
incurred event are moderated (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009). They are mainly concerned
with the demand side of the supply chain. Four main enablers are proposed for effective SCA
within the reactive approach, namely:
(1) Strategic flexibility
300 (2) Demand management
(3) Contingency planning
(4) Strategic orientation
The findings also address three central enablers that might fit into either mode depending on
when they are applied, and thus they are needed in both modes:
(1) Supportive information technology
(2) Collaborative relationship
(3) Logistics and distribution capabilities
For instance, a collaborative relationship can help to alleviate potential threats
(Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009) or anticipate possible opportunities through information
sharing. However, it can also be utilized to reconfigure aligned resources and assets rapidly
(Ngai et al., 2011; Sangari and Razmi, 2015) by providing a synergetic response. Another
noticeable finding is that some particular enablers are interrelated. For example, information
technology is a sine qua non for almost all other enablers in both modes. It enables the
capturing of accurate market data (Christopher, 2000; Li et al., 2006), streamlines operations
and inventory (Brusset, 2016; DeGroote and Marx, 2013), enhances information sharing and
connectivity between supply chain members (DeGroote and Marx, 2013; Lin et al., 2006; Liu
et al., 2013; Sangari and Razmi, 2015; Shi et al., 2016, 2017), fosters flexibility (Ngai et al., 2011),
coordinates and integrates activities in procurement, manufacturing and logistics and
distribution (Swafford et al., 2008) and assists in building effective relationships with
suppliers (DeGroote and Marx, 2013; Yang, 2014). Finally, while each article focuses on a
specific set of enablers, the findings of this review reveal that the proactive and reactive
modes share the same number of enablers (four). This critical finding stresses the equal
importance of both modes and indicates that supply chain managers should apply equal
effort to both approaches to engender agility in the supply chain.
Figure 4 shows SCA enablers classified as proactive and reactive. This illustration
provides a reference guide for practitioners considering SCA capitalization. It differs from
other frameworks in terms of its scope, as it is exclusively centred on SCA and thus
companies can blend elements by utilizing each enabler where appropriate. Thus far, the
study has established the conceptual structure and enablers of SCA. Last but not least, it is
salient to consider the implications that SCA has for a firm.

Performance implications of SCA

While this section aims to synthesize the various outcomes of SCA in terms of how it can
affect performance, the authors note that even the measures used to confirm this relationship
are diffuse. Therefore, it was decided to present the published contributions that address both
the performance measures and the performance outcomes of SCA. It is the premise of this
paper that investigating the performance of SCA will advance its understanding and
contribute to forming an overarching and widely accepted conceptualization.
 Supply chain
• Market sensitivity agility
• Strategic sourcing
• Culture of change
Proactive • Strategic operational alignment
Supply
• Supportive information technology
• Collaborative relationships Chain 301
• Logistics and distribution capabilities
Agility
• Flexibility
Reactive
• Demand management
• Contingency planning
• Strategic orientation Figure 4.
Enablers of SCA

One reason for embracing an ASC is to maintain competitiveness and improve profitability
(Dubey et al., 2018; Swafford et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2017). Only a few studies have addressed
the link between SCA and firm competitiveness qualitatively. Li et al. (2008) conceptually
investigated the relationship between SCA and firm competitiveness from a work–design
perspective. They concluded that a firm’s agile performance is positively related to its
competitiveness.
Only 18 papers, except the one by Wu et al. (2017), which used an analytical methodology
stemming from a case study, among the selected articles were based on empirical research
conducted to quantify the impact of SCA on a wide variety of performance measures. The
allocation of these studies across the years is illustrated in Figure 5, which demonstrates that
only recently have the outcomes of SCA been investigated empirically. The study by
Swafford et al. (2008) was the first of its kind to test the impact of SCA on competitive business
performance. The main message that Figure 5 conveys is that, although the interest in
measuring SCA benefits has been growing, there is still a modest number of highly ranked
papers that have scrutinized the performance implications of SCA and much is still needed to
confirm its outcomes, especially in such volatile markets.
The papers that have offered definitions of performance and assume it to be improved by
SCA have taken different types of performance indicators into account: from purely
operational performance references (e.g. product innovation, lead time reduction, service and
quality) to broad strategic performance (e.g. overall competitiveness, profitability and sales
growth). They have also considered performance for differing units of analysis, such as the

Figure 5.
1
Dispersion of empirical
articles tackling SCA
performance
implications over
0 the years
2008 2009 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
IJPDLM whole supply chain or the organizational level. With regard to how performance is measured
50,2 (see the overview in Table 5), the majority of studies have included items related to logistics
and supply chain management (SCM) performance, with approximately 50% also including
financial performance. The number of items used for measuring performance has varied from
1 (Gligor, 2016; Gligor et al., 2015) to 13 (Sangari and Razmi, 2015), with a mean of 5.7.
Moreover, a closer investigation of the constructs revealed a diversity of measures of
performance, with some authors focusing on operational performance (Blome et al., 2013)
302 while others (Tse et al., 2016) did not take such indicators into account.
With respect to performance outcomes, with the exception of two studies (Tarafdar and
Qrunfleh, 2016; Yusuf et al., 2014), all the papers explicitly took the starting hypothesis that

SR Author Performance type Result

1 Swafford et al. Competitive business A direct relationship is supported

(2008) performance
2 Khan et al. (2009) Organizational A significant impact is supported
performance
3 Gligor and 1. Operational A positive impact is supported for both types of
Holcomb (2012a) performance performance
2. Relational
performance
4 Dwayne Whitten Supply chain A significant and positive impact is supported
et al. (2012) performance (combined impact with adaptable and aligned SC)
5 DeGroote and 1. Financial A significant and positive impact is supported for both
Marx (2013) performance types of performance
2. Operational
performance
6 Liu et al. (2013) Firm performance A positive relationship is supported
7 Blome et al. (2013) Operational A positive impact is supported
performance
8 Yusuf et al. (2014) 1. Business Positive correlations are supported for business
performance performance
2. Competitive Strong positive correlations are supported only for
objectives quality, proactivity, innovation, delivery and speed
9 Qrunfleh and Supply chain A significant direct effect is supported (agile SC and
Tarafdar (2014) performance firm performance)
This relationship is fully mediated by supply chain
performance
10 Eckstein et al. 1. Cost performance A significant impact is supported for both types of
(2015) 2. Operational performance
performance
11 Sangari and SCA performance A positive effect is supported
Razmi (2015)
12 Tse et al. (2016) Firm performance A significant positive effect is supported
13 Chan et al. (2017) Firm performance A significant impact is supported
14 Al-Shboul (2017) Manufacturer’s firm A positive relationship is supported
performance
15 Yang (2014) Firm performance Performance is mediated through cost efficiency
16 Gligor et al. (2015) Financial performance There is no direct relationship. There is a positive
impact through cost efficiency and customer
effectiveness
17 Tarafdar and Supply chain Full mediation through strategic supplier partnership
Table 5. Qrunfleh (2016) performance Partial mediation through postponement
The nature of the 18 Gligor (2016) Financial performance There is no direct relationship. Full mediation through
relationship between SC fit
SCA and performance* Note(s): *The studies highlighted in grey are those reporting ambivalent results (indirect relationship)
SCA positively – or directly – affects performance. Another interesting pattern is the nature Supply chain
of the relationship between SCA and firm performance. agility
Table 5 also offers a summary of the nature of the relationships between SCA and
performance in the articles identified. Among the 18 papers providing empirical evidence on
the link between SCA and performance, 14 affirmed a positive relationship, while 4 provided
more ambivalent results (highlighted in grey). For example, Gligor (2016) and Gligor et al.
(2015) found that there is no direct relationship between SCA and firms’ financial
performance measured by return on assets (ROA), a relationship that has shown 303
contradictory results in other studies (e.g. Khan et al., 2009; Swafford et al., 2008; Tse et al.,
2016). The other ambivalent results confirmed the positive relationship through different
mediating variables. Such ambivalent results generally suggest a complex relationship
between SCA and different types of performance. The section below discusses the studies
that reported “no direct relationship (ambivalent)” followed by studies that reported a
“positive relationship” in more detail.
(1) SCA and firm performance: ambivalent results
Evidence of “no direct relationship” between SCA and firm performance can be found in the
work of Gligor et al. (2015). Using responses from a survey questionnaire completed by
283 US companies, the authors could not find a direct relationship between SCA and firms’
financial performance measured by ROA, a relationship that has shown contradictory results
in other studies (e.g. Khan et al., 2009; Swafford et al., 2008; Tse et al., 2016). However, an
indirect relationship was found to exist between SCA and firm performance mediated by cost
efficiency and customer effectiveness. While the strength of this study was supported by a
good sample size (i.e. 283) collected from multi-industry senior-level managers, the
measurement of firm performance might have been inconclusive, as it substantiated the
financial performance of the firm by employing only one construct (i.e. ROA) and ignored
other highly recognized measures, such as profitability and return on investment (ROI).
Another example of an indirect relationship was reported by Yang (2014). The authors
used SEM with 137 manufacturers in China to examine empirically the antecedents and
consequences of SCA. The study found no direct relationship between SCA and firm
performance. Parallel to Gligor et al. (2015), the authors found cost efficiency to mediate the
SCA–firm performance relationship. Whilst the study used valid and reliable measures and
had a high response rate to the questionnaire (i.e. 27%), only one operational measure (i.e.
quality) was used to measure the dependent variable (firm performance). More concrete
results would have been obtained if a more balanced approached had been followed.
(2) SCA and firm performance: positive direct relationship
Those studies that addressed the contention of the positive impact of SCA on firm
performance postulated that SCA arms organizations with competitive privileges. Through
their comprehensive study, Yusuf et al. (2014) revealed that SCA has a significant influence on
competitive objectives and business performance. The study was limited to the oil and gas
industry, however. Eckstein et al. (2015) empirically demonstrated that SCA significantly
influences both cost performance and operational performance. This is consistent with Liu
et al. (2013), who measured firms’ performance via multiple constructs: operational,
marketing and financial. A more recent study conducted by Tse et al. (2016) claimed that SCA
has a significant influence on firms’ performance in terms of return on sales, sales growth,
ROA, ROI and overall profitability. Although the study reported a relatively acceptable
number of respondents (i.e. 266), it focused on one industry within one country, that is, the
electronics industry in China. The study was also limited in that it included only financial and
marketing measures. Gligor and Holcomb (2012a) addressed the association between SCA
IJPDLM and firms’ operational and relational performance. Analogous results were also reported by
50,2 Blome et al. (2013), who claimed, from a dynamic capabilities perspective, the positive
influence of SCA on operational performance. In contrast, although Dwayne Whitten et al.
(2012) discovered a positive relationship between SCA and marketing performance through
supply chain performance, the relationship between SCA and financial performance was
found to be weak.
This review regarding the performance implications of SCA generally reveals that a great
304 deal of research has sought to examine the benefits of SCA by quantifying financially
oriented measures. However, while increasing their financial performance is organizations’
ultimate goal (Chen and Paulraj, 2004; Nadkarni and Narayanan, 2007), it is of great
importance to maintain other performance dimensions, since SCA was originally linked to
many non-financial issues – flexibility, lead time, quality, members’ relations, marketing, cost
and so on. This is in line with the guidelines projected by Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007). The
failure to represent a set of financial and non-financial measures in a balanced framework, the
inconsistencies in performance indicators and constructs and the slightly contradictory
findings all indicate that there is no universal consensus regarding suitable measures of SCA
performance outcomes and that the commonly implemented SCA measurements are
fragmented.

Discussion
This review process has shown the research development about SCA in several scientific
arenas. As Table 3 shows, a relatively large proportion of authors have proposed new
definitions or modifications to the existing definitions. This suggests that there is no
consensus on a definition, a point that has superficially been acknowledged by some authors
(Gligor et al., 2013; Li et al., 2008). Capturing a total of 25 SCA definitions pinpoints two issues:
first, it indicates accelerated awareness of the concept; second, it points to the fact that SCA is
still in a developmental stage. This study’s proposed definition is more encompassing than
others, because many of the previously published definitions have only included a few
themes. The definition is not simply another addition to the SCA literature but rather serves
to synthesize SCA thoughts, yielding a definition of SCA generated from previously
published research around which consensus could be built. Hence, is this consensus definition
“the ideal definition”? It is probable that no ideal definition will be determined, because SCA is
continuously developing and evolving. Nonetheless, the authors believe the proposed
definition to be better than those previously published, because it encompasses themes that
have been widely agreed upon in the SCA literature: speed, scope, mode and outcomes. While
these themes might be developing, they will remain a vital part of SCA as the area continues
to grow and develop.
The analysis also clearly demonstrates a lack of consistency in terms of identifying
different enablers that may aid or hinder the ability to capture SCA effectively. The different
terms have herein been synthesized and grouped into proactive and reactive modes, each
carrying the same number of enablers (four), together with the identification of three mutual
enablers. It is believed that, by combining the two modes, organizations can better engender
SCA. The choice of the combination of enablers to utilize and to what extent will depend on
the types and characteristics of the changes faced by organizations (Baramichai et al., 2007)
and the scale of the organization (Ngai et al., 2011).
The findings also reveal that the study of SCA has to date experienced a lack of reasonable
and sufficient performance dimensions and measures. The surrounding conceptual
ambiguity of SCA might have hampered the development of an established link to
performance, and thus only a few robust studies have attempted to address this issue.
Selecting the most appropriate performance aspects and measures is challenging to
operations management researchers. This might be due to the complexity of the supply chain Supply chain
(Beamon, 1999). Although financial performance has been argued to be the dominant agility
indicator, it is a limited gauge of firms’ improvement in such highly competitive markets that
might not exactly reflect the SCA’s dynamism. Consequently, including other performance
indicators along with financial indicators would provide a wider performance
conceptualization. Composite performance measures generate more precise results
concerning organizations’ improvement and allow the examination of all aspects of SCA,
consider the effect of uncertainty and take into account the strategic goals of the organization 305
(Beamon, 1999).
Accordingly, and given the complexity of the performance concept issue, this study
argues that an encompassing balanced approach should be adopted. This manuscript argues
that the scrutiny of SCA outcomes should be based on five broad categories of firm
performance: operational performance, cost performance, marketing performance, relational
performance and financial performance. Conceptualizing cost performance as a unique
construct provides true indicators about the efficiency of SCA. This will contribute to
providing a holistic view of the consequences of SCA by looking at the “negative” aspects of
SCA, that is, the cost that SCA may incur.
In line with Stank et al. (2003), cost was decoupled from operational performance and
included in a unique performance indicator to determine its individual link to SCA, thus
providing a richer understanding of performance. Market performance is defined as the
extent to which a firm achieves its market-related performance goals in terms of sales
performance and market share (Green and Inman, 2005). Relational performance concerns
relationship behaviour, relationship quality and relationship strength that accrues to those
customers who invest in an ongoing relationship with the firm.
Based on this argument, this study formulates a developed conceptual model of SCA that
aids in capturing SCA better, as shown in Figure 6. Besides delineating the themes of a
universally accepted SCA definition, the framework provides the groundwork for an
emerging theory of SCA by synthesizing many hitherto disconnected studies published in
multiple research outlets. It seeks to assert the distinct quality – speed – that allows

Major themes of SCA definition

Operational
performance

• Market sensitivity
• Strategic sourcing
Marketing
Proactive • Culture of change
performance
• Strategic operational alignment
S
Supply
p • Supportive information technology
e • Collaborative relationships Chain Relational
• Logistics and distribution capabilities performance
e Agility
d Reactive • Flexibility
• Demand management
• Contingency planning Cost
performance
• Strategic orientation

Financial
performance

Figure 6.
SCA enablers Performance Implications Developed conceptual
model of SCA
IJPDLM organizations to predict and respond to market changes through well-grouped enablers; if
50,2 blended effectively, these will advance firms’ overall performance.
This study is important to practitioners, as it is the first of its kind to inform them broadly
and comprehensively about the need to develop proactive and reactive capabilities to
engender the correct agility in the supply chain for success. This study makes an effort to
show managers the need to balance the focus on the sense and response capabilities
to manage the complexity and challenges in the current markets. Managers have previously
306 focused on one of a few performance dimensions. This study suggests a balanced look at
performance. In fact, the conceptual framework in this review can become a valuable tool to
assist in measurement, estimation, assessment and benchmarking key drivers to improve
and predict performance.

Directions for future research

SCA is an increasingly important phenomenon with potential that has not fully been realized.
Several topics that prompt further investigation are briefly discussed below.

Continuous investigation of SCA via multiple methodologies

Given the relatively recent emergence of SCA as a discipline and the dynamic nature of the
field, scholars should continue to perform research that examines what SCA is and is not.
This may require continuous investigations via case studies that examine other SCA
enablers, field interviews that tap the richness of what practitioners believe is involved in
SCA and surveys that supply a wider verification of conclusions reached in the first two types
of studies. Through this systematic examination of what is and what is not included in SCA,
scholars would be able to publish different theoretical models of SCA.

Examining SCA enabler relationships

While the stream of empirical work on SCA has grown steadily in recent years, it remains
insufficiently developed (Eckstein et al., 2015; Gligor and Holcomb, 2012a). Thus, the next
phase may involve validation of this study’s proposed framework by conducting further
research, particularly in different industrial sectors, to collect evidence from companies and
examine the importance of any causal relationships between SCA enablers. More
interestingly, there is scope to benchmark this study’s synthesized enablers, providing a
comprehensive selection of the most appropriate and optimal scenario(s) under which they
function as well as the joint impact of these enablers on SCA. Previous research has
scrutinized almost all the connections between each of these enablers and SCA. However, the
role of each cluster in buttressing reactive or proactive SCA has not been yet examined. This
is prominent given the constant and rapid changes in markets, and thus more innovative
empirical research is needed. Additionally, it has been noticed that literature ignored the role
of innovativeness in amplifying SCA. This would be of great interest.

Testing new performance models

In line with this, the authors suggest exploiting and empirically testing new models that
demonstrate the significant impact of SCA on multiple performance measures, given the
dearth of research from this perspective. The proposed framework allows the incorporation of
performance quantification. Therefore, the study proposes exploiting methodological tools,
such as case studies, in combination with quantitative methods to validate the theoretical
concepts. In the same vein, researchers may apply a multiple case study approach to analyse
and benchmark the payoffs – or losses – between those organizations incorporating SCA and
non-SCA adopters in the same sector that are exposed to homogeneous market circumstances.
The authors believe that such studies would attract more companies to focus on SCA and
shed light on effective enablers for implementing SCA to obtain the maximum benefits. Supply chain
Scrutinizing the relationship between SCA and financial performance through operational, agility
marketing, relational and cost performance would be of great interest.

Robustness of empirical results

More rigorous studies are needed to examine aspects that have still not been investigated. For
instance, what is the role of SCA under different macroeconomic climates? Are different
groups of enablers – or a specific mixture – needed during an economic recession? Are the 307
benefits of SCA enhanced or weakened under such circumstances? Quantitative approaches
can lead to new sources of data to produce important knowledge and acquire new insights.
Moreover, much can be achieved in our proposed framework. Testing the mediating effect of
SCA in the relationship between each enabler and each performance dimension would
enlighten the SCA literature.

Universality of SCA
The area of global SCA could provide many opportunities and extend the seminal work of
Prater et al. (2001). Is the proactive–reactive nature of SCA valid in and across different
national cultures? Do the enablers change according to different global regions and across
different types of companies? Are there any regional differences regarding the financial
benefits of SCA? More empirical studies from different regions and cultures may be
conducted in this area to confirm the general findings presented in this study. There is a
dearth of SCA research with respect to an international focus. This is despite the fact that,
nowadays, globalization is arguably one of the most critical aspects for industry
practitioners. Moreover, it could be possible to investigate how companies in the same or
in different sectors capture the topic of agility in the supply chain. This may answer the
question of how prevalent SCA is. Indeed, this may yield benchmarking information on
companies as well as on regions. Nonetheless, the review is in itself a noteworthy contribution
as it lays the theoretical foundations for future SCA studies.

SCA in the service sector

The lack of studies addressing SCA in services is perhaps one of the main gaps in the current
SCA literature. Indeed, a great majority of the existing literature on SCA concerns
manufacturing supply chains. In view of the crucial role of the service industry (e.g.
education, health care, banking, hospitality and so on) in the current economy, the literature
related to service-based SCA must be enriched. Accordingly, there is a clear need to package
and interpret lessons from the SCA research and test it in the service sector considering the
differences between manufacturing and service operations and the implications that these
differences may have for capturing SCA. In comparison to manufacturing, service operations:
(1) have greater customer involvement, (2) are more sensitive to quality errors, (3) have tight
delivery times and (4) are more dependent on information reliability (Brandon-Jones et al.,
2016). All these elements might pose challenges for SCA implementation, for example how to
deliver services that precisely match the customer requirements and how to promise short
delivery times for highly customized services. Research on SCA in the service sector could be
either theoretical (e.g. matching themes, if applicable, in manufacturing versus service
industries), exploratory (e.g. surveys of service industries to identify practices) or descriptive
(e.g. case studies of service companies).

Concluding remarks
SCA has transitioned from a simple extension of organizational agility to a distinct domain
with its own identity. This study has provided extra momentum for this transition in four
IJPDLM ways. First, it has developed a new definition of SCA that not only offers a more complete
50,2 picture of ASCs but also addresses the shortcomings and drawbacks of the existing literature.
Second, it has identified the enablers of SCA from both proactive and reactive perspectives,
allowing researchers from both camps to communicate and collaborate more effectively.
Third, it has discussed the performance implications of SCA and concluded that agility in
supply chains brings various benefits at different levels of the organization. Hence, studying
selected measures of SCA alone no longer makes theoretical sense; more sophisticated models
308 are required to understand how, when and why SCA matters. Finally, the study has proposed
several directions for future research to help researchers who are interested in SCA take stock
of the existing literature and advance this growing field in a more systematic way.

Notes
1. The ABS guide can be accessed via http://www.kfs.edu.eg/com/pdf/20820152253917.pdf.
2. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/, https://www.merriam-webster.com/

References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2007), “Modeling agility of supply chain”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-457.
Al-Shboul, M.D.A. (2017), “Infrastructure framework and manufacturing supply chain agility: the role
of delivery dependability and time to market”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 172-185.
Aslam, H., Blome, C., Roscoe, S. and Azhar, T.M. (2018), “Dynamic supply chain capabilities: how
market sensing, supply chain agility and adaptability affect supply chain ambidexterity”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2266-2285.
Bal, J., Wilding, R. and Gundry, J. (1999), “Virtual teaming in the agile supply chain”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 71-82.
Baramichai, M., Zimmers, E.W. Jr and Marangos, C.A. (2007), “Agile supply chain transformation
matrix: an integrated tool for creating an agile enterprise”, Supply Chain Management – An
International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 334-348.
Beamon, B.M (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 275-292.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Rexhausen, D. (2013), “Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility
and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1295-1318.
Brandon-Jones, A., Lewis, M., Verma, R. and Walsman, M.C. (2016), “Examining the characteristics
and managerial challenges of professional services: an empirical study of management
consultancy in the travel, tourism, and hospitality sector”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 42, pp. 9-24.
Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain
agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 119-140.
Brusset, X. (2016), “Does supply chain visibility enhance agility?”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 171, pp. 46-59.
Calatayud, A., Mangan, J. and Christopher, M. (2019), “The self-thinking supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Chan, A.T., Ngai, E.W. and Moon, K.K. (2017), “The effects of strategic and manufacturing flexibilities
and supply chain agility on firm performance in the fashion industry”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 259 No. 2, pp. 486-499.
Chiang, C.Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. and Suresh, N. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the impact Supply chain
of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 49-78. agility
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Collin, J. and Lorenzin, D. (2006), “Plan for supply chain agility at Nokia: lessons from the mobile
infrastructure industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 418-430. 309
DeGroote, S.E. and Marx, T.G. (2013), “The impact of IT on supply chain agility and firm performance:
an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 909-916.
Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Supply
chain agility, adaptability and alignment: empirical evidence from the Indian auto components
industry”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 129-148.
Dwayne Whitten, G., Green, K.W. Jr and Zelbst, P.J. (2012), “Triple-a supply chain performance”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Fayezi, S., Zutshi, A. and O’Loughlin, A. (2015), “How Australian manufacturing firms perceive and
understand the concepts of agility and flexibility in the supply chain”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 246-281.
Fayezi, S., Zutshi, A. and O’Loughlin, A. (2016), “Understanding and development of supply chain
agility and flexibility: a structured literature review”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 379-407.
Gligor, D.M. (2014), “The role of demand management in achieving supply chain agility”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 577-591.
Gligor, D.M. (2016), “The role of supply chain agility in achieving supply chain fit”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 524-553.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2012a), “Antecedents and consequences of supply chain agility:
establishing the link to firm performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 295-308.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2012b), “Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in achieving
supply chain agility: a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management – An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 438-453.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M. (2014), “The road to supply chain agility: an RBV perspective on the
role of logistics capabilities”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 160-179.
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M.C. and Stank, T.P. (2013), “A multidisciplinary approach to supply chain
agility: conceptualization and scale development”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 94-108.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33, pp. 71-82.
Green, K. and Inman, R. (2005), “Using a just-in-time selling strategy to strengthen supply chain
linkages”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16, pp. 3437-3453.
Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply
chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-2840.
IJPDLM Ismail, H.S. and Sharifi, H. (2006), “A balanced approach to building agile supply chains”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 431-444.
50,2
Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “What’s the buzz about moving from ‘lean’ to ‘agile’
integrated supply chains? A fuzzy intelligent agent-based approach”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6649-6677.
Khan, A.K., Bakkappa, B., Metri, B.A. and Sahay, B.S. (2009), “Impact of agile supply chains’ delivery
practices on firms’ performance: cluster analysis and validation”, Supply Chain Management –
310 An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Kim, M. and Chai, S. (2017), “The impact of supplier innovativeness, information sharing and strategic
sourcing on improving supply chain agility: global supply chain perspective”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 187, pp. 42-52.
Lee, H.L. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties”, California
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-119.
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-a supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-113.
Li, G., Lin, Y., Wang, S. and Yan, H. (2006), “Enhancing agility by timely sharing of supply
information”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 425-435.
Li, X., Chung, C., Goldsby, T.J. and Holsapple, C.W. (2008), “A unified model of supply chain agility:
the work–design perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 408-435.
Lin, C.T., Chiu, H. and Chu, P.Y. (2006), “Agility index in the supply chain”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 285-299.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K. and Hua, Z. (2013), “The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance: the
mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 1452-1462.
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1999), “Total cycle time compression and the agile supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2, pp. 61-73.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 151
No. 4, pp. 264-269.
Nadkarni, S. and Narayanan, V.K. (2007), “Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm
performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 243-270.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 107-118.
Ngai, E.W.T., Chau, D.C.K. and Chan, T.L.A. (2011), “Information technology, operational, and
management competencies for supply chain agility: findings from case studies”, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 232-249.
Power, D.J., Sohal, A.S. and Rahman, S.U. (2001), “Critical success factors in agile supply chain
management: an empirical study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 247-265.
Prater, E., Biehl, M. and Smith, M.A. (2001), “International supply chain agility – tradeoffs between
flexibility and uncertainty”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 21 Nos 5-6, pp. 823-839.
Qrunfleh, S. and Tarafdar, M. (2013), “Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain
responsiveness: the role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 571-582.
Qrunfleh, S. and Tarafdar, M. (2014), “Supply chain information systems strategy: impacts on supply
chain performance and firm performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 147, pp. 340-350.
Russell, D. and Swanson, D. (2019), “Transforming information into supply chain agility: an agility Supply chain
adaptation typology”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 329-355.
agility
Sangari, M.S. and Razmi, J. (2015), “Business intelligence competence, agile capabilities, and agile
performance in supply chain”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 356-380.
Sharma, N., Sahay, B., Shankar, R. and Sarma, P. (2017), “Supply chain agility: review, classification
and synthesis”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 532-559. 311
Shi, Y., Zhang, A., Arthanari, T. and Liu, Y. (2016), “Third-party purchase: an empirical study of
Chinese third-party logistics users”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 286-307.
Shi, Y., Arthanari, T. and Wood, L. (2017), “Developing third-party purchase (3PP) services: New
Zealand third-party logistics providers’ perspectives”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 40-57.
Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J., Vickery, S.K. and Savitskie, K. (2003), “Logistics service performance:
estimating its influence on market share”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-55.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), “The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm:
scale development and model testing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 170-188.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2008), “Achieving supply chain agility through IT
integration and flexibility”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 288-297.
Tarafdar, M. and Qrunfleh, S. (2016), “Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain performance:
complementary roles of supply chain practices and information systems capability for agility”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 925-938.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence–
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Thome, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F. and Scavarda, A.J. (2016), “Conducting systematic literature review in
operations management”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 408-420.
Tse, Y.K., Zhang, M., Akhtar, P. and MacBryde, J. (2016), “Embracing supply chain agility: an
investigation in the electronics industry”, Supply Chain Management – An International Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 140-156.
Um, J. (2017), “Improving supply chain flexibility and agility through variety management”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 464-487.
Van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), “Measuring agile capabilities in the supply
chain”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1-2,
pp. 126-147.
Vinodh, S., Prakash, N.H. and Selvan, K.E. (2011), “Evaluation of agility in supply chains using fuzzy
association rules mining”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 22,
pp. 6651-6661.
White, A., Daniel, E.M. and Mohdzain, M. (2005), “The role of emergent information technologies and
systems in enabling supply chain agility”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 396-410.
Wu, K.J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Achieving competitive advantage through
supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-making structure”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 190, pp. 96-107.
Yang, J. (2014), “Supply chain agility: securing performance for Chinese manufacturers”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 150, pp. 104-113.
IJPDLM Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Adeleye, E.O. and Sivayoganathan, K. (2004), “Agile supply chain
capabilities: determinants of competitive objectives”, European Journal of Operational Research,
50,2 Vol. 159 No. 2, pp. 379-392.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., Dauda, M., El-Berishy, N.M. and Cang, S. (2014), “A relational
study of supply chain agility, competitiveness and business performance in the oil and gas
industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 531-543.

312
Corresponding author
Eias Al Humdan can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]