Adapting to Disruptions: A Qualitative Study on Supply Chain Agility During Crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study delves into the intricate dynamics of how organizations adapt to supply chain disruptions during crises, offering profound insights into the strategies, practices, and challenges encountered in enhancing supply chain agility. Through in-depth interviews with supply chain managers across diverse industries, key themes such as proactive risk management, technological integration, collaboration with supply chain partners, and adaptive leadership have emerged as crucial determinants of agility and resilience. Additionally, the study highlights the significance of organizational culture, effective communication, and external factors such as regulatory requirements and market dynamics in shaping supply chain agility. By embracing a holistic approach that integrates these multifaceted factors, organizations can bolster their capacity to anticipate, detect, and respond to disruptions, thereby maintaining or enhancing overall performance even in the face of uncertainty and complexity. The insights gleaned from this research are poised to inform theory development, guide managerial practice, and influence policy-making in the realm of supply chain management, equipping organizations with the knowledge and tools needed to navigate future disruptions successfully.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".