Intangible supply chain complexity, organizational structure and firm performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a large-sample empirical examination of how intangible supply chain complexity impacts firm performance in light of a firm's organizational structure. Design/methodology/approach The study uses panel data from 2,580 Indian manufacturing firms and constructs empirical proxy for intangible supply chain complexity, i.e. CHQ distance from major cities. The proposed conceptual model is grounded in the dynamic capability view (DCV) and social network theory (SNT). Multivariate regression analyses are performed to investigate the effect of intangible complexity on firm performance. Findings Results show that intangible supply chain complexity, as proxied by “CHQ distance from major cities”, negatively affects firm performance and a firm's organizational structure plays an important role in conceiving CHQ locational strategies. Firms with interconnected supply chain and social network (e.g. business group firms) have a higher propensity to locate their CHQs farther away from major cities, and business group firms that have more distantly located CHQs experience better financial performance compared to independent firms (with less network resources). Originality/value In light of the supply chain literature and relevant theories, the study conceptualizes intangible supply chain complexity as “CHQ distance from major cities” and deepens our understanding of the relationship between intangible complexity and firm performance in light of organizational structure. Further, it develops an objective understanding of intangible supply chain complexity by relying on secondary panel data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".