Adapting Procurement Practices to Disruptive Events: Lessons from Recent Supply Chain Disruptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how organizations adapt their procurement practices in response to supply chain disruptions, aiming to enhance resilience and ensure operational continuity. Through qualitative research involving interviews with procurement professionals and industry experts, the study identifies key adaptive strategies employed by organizations, including supplier diversification, enhanced inventory management, digital transformation, supplier collaboration, and contingency planning. These strategies are explored in depth, highlighting their implementation challenges and the outcomes achieved. Despite facing obstacles such as financial constraints, technological barriers, and supplier resistance, organizations have demonstrated a proactive approach in leveraging these strategies to mitigate risks and improve supply chain resilience. The findings reveal that adaptive procurement strategies have led to significant outcomes, including strengthened supplier relationships, increased operational efficiency, better risk management, and competitive advantage. These outcomes underscore the strategic importance of agility, technological integration, collaborative partnerships, and effective leadership in responding to disruptions and maintaining competitiveness. The study also discusses implications for practice and policy, emphasizing the need for continued investment in technology, collaboration, and resilience-building initiatives across supply chains. Overall, this research contributes to the understanding of how organizations can adapt and innovate in the face of dynamic supply chain challenges, providing insights that can guide future research and inform strategic decision-making in procurement and supply chain management.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".