The effects of tie strength and data integration with supply base on supply disruption ambiguity and its impact on inventory turnover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In this paper, the authors introduce supply disruption ambiguity as the inability of a sourcing firm to attach probability point estimates to the occurrence of and to the magnitude of loss from supply disruptions. The authors drew on the “ambiguity in decision-making” literature to define this concept formally, connected it to relevant supply disruption information deficit, positioned it relative to supply chain risk assessment and hypothesized and tested its negative associations with both supply base ties and inventory turnover. Design/methodology/approach The authors analysed survey data from 171 North American manufacturers and archival data for a subset (88 publicly listed) of these manufacturers via Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimation after ensuring that methodological concerns with survey research have been addressed. They used appropriate controls and employed the heteroskedasticity-based instrumental variable (HBIV) approach to ensure that inferences from our results are not unduly influenced by endogeneity. Findings Strong supply base ties decrease supply disruption ambiguity, which, in turn, increases inventory turnover. Moreover, strong supply base ties and data integration with the supply base have indirect and positive effects on inventory turnover. As sourcing firms strengthen ties and integrate data exchange with their supply base, their inventory turnover improves from access to information relevant to detect and diagnose supply disruptions effectively. Originality/value Research on supply disruption management has paid more attention to the “disruption recovery” stage than to the “disruption discovery” stage. In this paper, the authors add novel insights regarding the recognition and diagnosis aspects of the “disruption discovery” stage. These novel insights reveal how and why sourcing firms reduce their overall ambiguity associated with detecting and assessing losses from supply disruptions through establishing strong ties with their supply base and how and why reducing such ambiguity improves inventory turnover performance.
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 | 0.016 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".