Framing the interplay mechanisms between structural and dynamic complexity in supply chains

Figures & data

Table 1. Adopted complexity categories and prior key classifications in the literature.

Complexity categories	Product portfolio and design	Internal SC design	External SC design
Ateş et al. (2021)	Internal	Internal	Upstream and downstream
Christopher (2016)	Product range complexity Product design complexity	Network complexity Process complexity Organizational complexity	Customer complexity Supplier complexity
Caniato and Größler (2015)	Product complexity	New product development (NPD) Product design Manufacturing	NPD and external operations
Mocker, Weill, and Woerner (2014)	Product/service	Organizational (includes process)
Collinson and Jay (2012)	Product	Organizational design Process
Ashkenas (2007)	Product/service	Organizational structure Processes

Figure 1. Case A’s interplay between complexity factors and management practices in the House of SC Complexity. X→Y: X aggravates Y (oriented according to prevailing direction of influence). Coded practices reported in Table 4.

Table 2. Case companies’ characteristics.

Characteristic	Case A	Case B	Case C	Case D
Industry	Food & beverage	Electronics	Automotive	Defence
Company size (number of employees)	4000	50,000	1500	45,000
SC scope	Multinational	Multinational	Multinational	Multinational
Strategic orientation	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Efficiency	Effectiveness
Operations model	Make to stock (MTS)	Make to stock (MTS)	Make to stock (MTS)	Engineered to order (ETO)/make to order (MTO)
SC position	Focal company	Focal company	First tier supplier	Various (on a project basis)

Table 3. Examples of data coding.

Case (and respondent)	Exemplary quote	Holistic code	Descriptive or in vivo code	Structural code
Case A (planning manager)	‘Then, in the SC in particular, the fact that all functions must work in series on after the other certainly does not help in reducing the complexity. So, the fact that we lack in knowledge on each other’s piece makes the functions sometimes make decisions that influence, that increase the complexity, for the following or preceding function. I mean, for example, that the same demand manager that yesterday said would need 5000, call you the day after to say ‘no, we will sell 8000, no, 4000’. There is a continuous change, and so you have back to the same things again and again.’	Portfolio breadth	Process in series Silo knowledge Cross-functional Continuous change	Interplay
Case B (SC program manager)	‘Internal processes are very fragmented with different systems talking together in different ways. We have also information coming from the systems of our partners. So, you can imagine because the system is not fully integrated, every time we want to make an evolution in the SC we need to be able to work with different systems and to try to take a ‘helicopter’s view’, in order to see: if we want to change something in one part of the process, what does it mean for the other elements.’	Fragmented processes	Process fragmentation Variety of partners and systems Reduced integration ‘Evolution’ Holistic view	Interplay
Case C (purchasing director)	‘A lot is based on the characteristics and experience of the specific plant. For example, the influence of the cost of labour. There are certain countries such as Country X and Y that are still low-cost if compared to W and Z. This has an impact on our SC, as in W there is a tendency, a rather strong one, towards automation. We are continuously looking to automate to reduce the impact that the labour cost has and, at the same time, to increase plant productive efficiency. And to reduce human mistakes.’	Continuous improvement	Cost of labour Plant specificities Automation: Increase efficiency Consistency	Contextual factors
Case D (head of SC)	‘In terms of the size and breadth of the product portfolio, when you have something that includes a large variety then, obviously, the impact on cost and speed and quality are probably negative. If you have a broad range of things you are never going to be truly efficient; you are only going to be efficient on things that are at volume.’	Portfolio breadth	Product variety Portfolio breadth SC performance Efficiency via aggregation	Impacts on performance

Table 4. Key of complexity management practices reported in Figure 1 (A: complexity accommodation; R: complexity reduction).

Cell. no.	Complexity management practices
1	Project management (A)
2	Project management (A); specific training (A)
3	Project management (A); acquisition integration practices (A)
4	Stocks (R)
5	Customized distribution channels (R); planning as unique interface (R); stocks (R)
6	Product rationalization (R); IT systems and ERP (A)
7	Product segmentation and specialized teams (A); IT systems and ERP (A)
8	IT systems and ERP (A)
9	Project management (A)
10	Customized distribution channels (R)
11	Purchasing centralization (R)
12	Localization of activities (R)
13	Category management (R)
14	Anti-mixing and traceability systems (A)
15	Project management (A)
16	Project management (A)
17	Localization of activities (R)

Table 5. Within-case analysis: complexity areas per case.

Complexity areas	Cases
	Case A	Case B	Case C	Case D
Increased uncertainty	√	√	√	√
Silo-thinking	√	√
Divergence of responses - localism		√	√	√
Insufficient coordination among functions	√
Poor information sharing	√
Limited adaptability			√
Increased coordination efforts			√
Accentuation of dependencies				√
IT systems as a double-edge sword	√			√

Figure 2. Interplay between structural and dynamic complexity factors showing a negative effect on cost performance. 1: Case A, 2: Case B, 3: Case C, 4: Case D. X→Y means X aggravates Y.

Figure 3. Predominant areas of influence of interplay mechanisms as observed in the four case studies.

Ateş, M. A., R. Suurmond, D. Luzzini, and D. Krause. 2021. “Order from Chaos: A Meta-analysis of Supply Chain Complexity and Firm Performance.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 58 (1): 3–30. doi:10.1111/jscm.12264.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christopher, M. 2016. Logistics & Supply Chain Management. Harlow, England: FT Publishing International.

 Google Scholar

Caniato, Federico, and Andreas Größler. 2015. “The Moderating Effect of Product Complexity on New Product Development and Supply Chain Management Integration.” Production Planning & Control 26 (16): 1306–1317. doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1027318.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mocker, M., P. Weill, and S. L. Woerner. 2014. “Revisiting Complexity in the Digital Age.” MIT Sloan Management Review 55 (4): 72–81.

 Google Scholar

Collinson, S., and M. Jay. 2012. From Complexity to Simplicity: Unleash Your Organisation’s Potential. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar