Examining the rigor of SCM research: the case of supply chain agility

• Published in: Supply chain management Vol. 28; no. 3; pp. 522 - 543
• Main Authors: Gligor, David M., Stank, Theodore P., Gligor, Nichole, Ogden, Jeffrey A., Nowicki, David R., Farris, Ted, Idug, Yavuz, Rana, Rishabh, Porchia, Jamie, Kiran, Patil
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bradford Emerald Publishing Limited 28.03.2023; Emerald Group Publishing Limited
• Subjects: Hypotheses; Logistics; Supply chain management; Supply chains; Validity; Validity; Theory; Supply chain agility; Rigor
• ISSN: 1359-8546; 1758-6852; 1359-8546
• DOI: 10.1108/SCM-12-2021-0575

Purpose This study aims to explore the impact of one significant threat to the rigor of theory building within supply chain management, namely, the improper development of different measures for the same construct. Design/methodology/approach Two survey studies are conducted. Study 1 investigates the impact of three firm orientations on five of the most cited supply chain agility (SCA) scales. Study 2 explores the impact of the same five SCA scales on three firm performance indicators. Findings The findings reveal that the five SCA scales display adequate discriminant validity and thus measure distinct concepts. Further, the relationships between SCA and its antecedents and consequences vary significantly depending on the SCA scale used. In essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs. Originality/value In essence, the scale used determines whether a relationship is supported or not, implying that researchers have been loosely applying the same label (i.e. SCA) to distinct constructs. The findings indicate the need for further scrutiny and investigation regarding the rigor and validity of theory building within the area of SCA. Importantly, rigorous scale development should be encouraged. Scholars should develop new scales when necessary while carefully distinguishing their proposed constructs and measures from extant ones.