This study examines the use of scenario planning—a strategic planning tool used for making decisions of long‐term nature—to adapt a buyer–supplier dyad for disruptions in their supply chain resulting from abrupt changes in regulations. We posit that dyadic scenarios, that is, those created jointly by a buyer and a supplier, alter the scope of supply chain design in relation to a regulatory disruption. We offer four hypotheses distinguishing dyadic scenario creation from the traditional single‐firm scenario creation and two additional hypotheses related specifically to scenarios of regulatory disruptions. Five of the six hypotheses are supported in a behavioral study of a regulatory context. We integrate these findings to propose a Supply Chain Regulation Preparedness (SRP) framework for assessing the effects of dyadic scenario creation in six regimens of regulatory disruptions. We discuss the implications of this framework for the theory and practice of organizational learning associated with supply chain configurations in the face of emergent public policies and highlight collaborative scenario planning as an emergent strategic‐level mechanism that supply chain partners can deploy jointly to address just‐in‐case uncertainties.
AgrestiA.1992. A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Stat. Sci.7(1): 131–153.
2.
AlesinaA.ArdagnaS.NicolettiG.SchiantarelliF.. 2005. Regulation and investment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc.3(4): 791–825.
3.
AndersonE.JrLimS.JoglekarN.. 2017. Are more frequent releases always better? Dynamics of pivoting, scaling, and the minimum viable product. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 5849–5858.
4.
AndersonE.JrParkerG.. 2013. Integration of global knowledge networks. Prod. Oper. Manag.22(6): 1446–1463.
5.
AtasuA.Van WassenhoveL.. 2012. An operations perspective on product take‐back legislation for e‐waste: Theory, practice, and research needs. Prod. Oper. Manag.21(3): 407–422.
6.
BarringerB.HarrisonJ.. 2000. Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. J. Manage.26(3): 367–403.
BodeC.WagnerS.PetersenK.EllramL.. 2011. Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Acad. Manag. J.54(4): 833–856.
9.
BourzacK.2011. The rare‐earth crisis. Technol. Rev.114(3): 58–63.
10.
BradfieldR.WrightG.BurtG.CairnsG.van derHeijdenK.. 2005. The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures37(8): 795–812.
11.
BundyJ.ShropshireC.BuchholtzA.. 2013. Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Acad. Manag. Rev.38(3): 352–376.
12.
CairnsG.WrightG.FairbrotherP.. 2016. Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of “scenario improvisation” method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.103: 97–108.
13.
CampbellD.StanleyJ.. 1966. Experimental and quasi‐experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
14.
CaoM.ZhangQ.. 2011. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag.29(3): 163–180.
15.
CapliceC.PhadnisS.2013. Strategic Issues Facing Transportation: Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investment. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
16.
CDC. 2020. COVID‐19 pandemic planning scenarios. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (accessed date August 24, 2020).
17.
CharpinR.PowellE.RothA.. 2020. The influence of perceived host country political risk on foreign subunits' supplier development strategies. J. Oper. Manag. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1127.
18.
CheungM.MyersM.MentzerJ.. 2011. The value of relational learning in global buyer–supplier exchanges: A dyadic perspective and test of the pie‐sharing promise. Strateg. Manag. J.32(10): 1061–1082.
19.
ChildJ.1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology6(1): 1–22.
20.
ChristmannP.DayD.YipG.. 1999. The relative influence of country conditions, industry structure, and business strategy on multinational corporation subsidiary performance. J. Int. Manag.5(4): 241–265.
21.
ChristopherM.HolwegM.. 2011. “Supply Chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Log. Manag.41(1): 63–82.
22.
ChristopherM.HolwegM.. 2017. Supply chain 2.0 revisited: A framework for managing volatility‐induced risk in the supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Log. Manag.47(1): 2–17.
23.
CourtneyH.KirklandJ.ViguerieP.. 1997. Strategy under uncertainty. Harv. Bus. Rev.75(6): 67–79.
24.
Cuervo‐CazurraA.GencM.. 2011. Obligating, pressuring, and supporting dimensions of the environment and the non‐market advantages of developing‐country multinational companies. J. Manage. Stud.48(2): 441–455.
25.
CyertR.MarchJ.1963. Behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
26.
DemeesterL.De MeyerA.GrahovacJ.. 2014. The role of operations executives in strategy making. J. Oper. Manag.32(7–8): 403–413.
27.
DerbyshireJ.2019. Use of scenario planning as a theory‐driven evaluation tool. Futures Foresight Sci.1(1): e1.
28.
Deutsche Post AG. 2012. Delivering Tomorrow: Logistics 2050 – A Scenario Study, Deutsche Post AG, Bonn, Germany.
29.
DickenP.MalmbergA.. 2001. Firms in territories: A relational perspective. Economic Geography77(4): 345–363.
30.
DiMaggioP.PowellW.. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev.48(2): 147–160.
31.
DohJ.PearceJ.II. 2004. Corporate entrepreneurship and real options in transitional policy environments: Theory development. J. Manage. Stud.41(4): 645–664.
32.
DorobantuS.KaulA.ZelnerB.. 2017. Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions. Strateg. Manag. J.38(1): 114–140.
33.
DuttN.JosephJ.. 2019. Regulatory uncertainty, corporate structure, and strategic agendas: Evidence from the U.S. renewable electricity industry. Acad. Manag. J.62(3): 800–827.
34.
DyerJ.SinghH.. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev.23(4): 660–679.
GinoF.PisanoG.. 2008. Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.10(4): 676–691.
43.
HadaniM.BonardiJ.DahanN.. 2017. Corporate political activity, public policy uncertainty, and firm outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Strateg. Organ.15(3): 338–366.
44.
HausmanW.LeeH.SubramanianU.. 2013. The impact of logistics performance on trade. Prod. Oper. Manag.22(2): 236–252.
45.
HendersonJ.DickenP.HessM.CoeN.YeungH.. 2002. Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ.9(3): 436–464.
46.
HuangX.AtasuA.ToktayL.. 2019. Design implications of extended producer responsibility for durable products. Management Sci.65(6): 2573–2590.
47.
JacksonS.DuttonJ.. 1988. Discerning threats and opportunities. Adm. Sci. Q.33(3): 370–387.
48.
Jimenez‐JimenezD.Martínez‐CostaM.RodriguezC.. 2019. The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. J. Knowl. Manag.23(3): 548–567.
49.
JoglekarN.DaviesJ.AndersonE.Jr. 2016. The role of industry studies and public policies in Production and Operations Management. Prod. Oper. Manag.25(12): 1977–2001.
50.
JoglekarN.RosenthalS.. 2003. Coordination of design supply chains for bundling physical and software products. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.20(5): 374–390.
51.
JosephJ.WilsonA.. 2018. The growth of the firm: An attention‐based view. Strateg. Manag. J.39(6): 1779–1800.
KwasniokT.GuarraiaP.GrastkaM.. 2017. Is your supply chain ready for Brexit?Bain & Company. Available at https://www.bain.com/insights/is-your-supply-chain-ready-for-brexit/ (accessed date May 13, 2019).
LeeH.2004. The triple‐A supply chain. Harv. Bus. Rev.82(10): 102–112.
56.
LinnemanR.KleinH.. 1983. The use of multiple scenarios by US industrial companies: A comparison study, 1977–1981. Long Range Plan.16(6): 94–101.
57.
NarayananS.NarasimhanR.SchoenherrT.. 2015. Assessing the contingent effects of collaboration on agility performance in buyer–supplier relationships. J. Oper. Manag.33–34: 140–154.
58.
NonakaI.1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci.5(1): 14–37.
59.
MacherJ.MayoJ.. 2015. Influencing public policymaking: Firm‐, industry‐, and country‐level determinants. Strateg. Manag. J.36(13): 2021–2038.
60.
MagrettaJ.1998. Fast, global, and entrepreneurial: Supply chain management, Hong Kong style. An interview with Victor Fung. Harv. Bus. Rev.76(5): 102–114.
61.
McDonaldJ.2014. Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rdedn. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, MD.
62.
MeissnerP.WulfT.. 2013. Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.80(4): 801–814.
63.
MelkonyanA.KrummeK.GruchmannT.SpinlerS.SchumacherT.BleischwitzR.. 2019. Scenario and strategy planning for transformative supply chains within a sustainable economy. J. Clean. Prod.231: 144–160.
64.
MeloE.Koch‐WeserI.McAdooM.VaradarajanR.VarasA.. 2019. Unpacking the US‐China tech trade war. Boston Consulting Group. Available at https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/us-china-tech-trade-war (accessed date September 17, 2019).
65.
MorrisonW.2019. Trade dispute with China and rare earth elements (Report No. IF-11259). Congressional Research Service. Available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11259 (accessed date August 24, 2020).
66.
OcasioW.1997. Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J.18(Summer special issue): 187–206.
67.
OcasioW.2011. Attention to attention. Organ. Sci.22(5): 1286–1296.
68.
OECD. 2020. Strategic Foresight for the COVID‐19 Crisis and Beyond: Using Futures Thinking to Design Better Public Policies. OECD. Available at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=134_134395-2n53o8sh0y (accessed date August 24, 2020).
69.
OhC.OetzelJ.. 2017. Once bitten twice shy? Experience managing violent conflict risk and MNC subsidiary‐level investment and expansion. Strateg. Manag. J.38(3): 714–731.
70.
OliveiraN.LumineauF.. 2019. The dark side of interorganizational relationships: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Manage.45(1): 231–261.
71.
OliverC.1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad. Manag. Rev.16(1): 145–179.
72.
O'ReillyC.III1980. Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is more necessarily better?Acad. Manag. J.23(4): 684–696.
73.
ParkS.LuoY.. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strateg. Manag. J.22(5): 455–477.
74.
ParkerG.AndersonE.Jr. 2002. From buyer to integrator: The transformation of the supply‐chain manager in the vertically disintegrating firm. Prod. Oper. Manag.11(1): 75–91.
75.
PAXsims. 2020. Gaming the supermarket supply chain: Pandemic edition. Available at https://paxsims.wordpress.com/tag/h-e-b/ (accessed date September 9, 2020).
76.
PetersenK.HandfieldR.RagatzG.. 2005. Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J. Oper. Manag.23(3–4): 371–388.
77.
PfefferJ.SalancikG.. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, 2003 edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
78.
PhadnisS.2019. Effectiveness of Delphi‐ and scenario planning‐like processes in enabling organizational adaptation: A simulation‐based comparison. Futures Foresight Sci.1(2): e9.
79.
PhadnisS.CapliceC.SheffiY.SinghM.. 2015. Effect of scenario planning on field experts' judgment of long‐range investment decisions. Strateg. Manag. J.36(9): 1401–1411.
80.
PhadnisS.CapliceC.SinghM.SheffiY.. 2014. Axiomatic foundation and a structured process for developing firm‐specific Intuitive Logics scenarios. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.88: 122–139.
81.
PhadnisS.DarkowI.. Scenario planning as a strategy process to foster supply chain adaptability: Theoretical framework and longitudinal case. Futures Foresight Sci. in press.
PlambeckE.WangQ.. 2009. Effects of e‐waste regulation on new product introduction. Management Sci.55(3): 333–347.
84.
PorterM.1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York.
85.
PwC. 2017. Supply chain: Your Brexit competitive advantage. PwC. Available at https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/assets/brexit-supply-chain-paper.pdf (accessed date December 7, 2018).
86.
RalstonP.RicheyR.GraweS.. 2017. The past and future of supply chain collaboration: A literature synthesis and call for research. Int. J. Log. Manag.28(2): 508–530.
87.
Reuters. 2010. China cuts rare earth export quotas, U.S. concerned. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rareearth-idUSTRE6BR0KX20101228 (accessed date August 19, 2020).
88.
RezaeiJ.vanRoekelW.TavasszyL.. 2018. Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transp. Policy68: 158–169.
89.
RohrbeckR.KumM.. 2018. Corporate foresight and its impact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.129: 105–116.
90.
SantosF.EisenhardtK.. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ. Sci.16(5): 491–508.
91.
SchoemakerP.1993. Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strateg. Manag. J.14(3): 193–213.
92.
SchoemakerP.2019. Attention and foresight in organizations. Futures Foresight Sci.1(1): e5.
93.
SchoenherrT.SwinkM.. 2012. Revisiting the arcs of integration: Cross‐validation and extensions. J. Oper. Manag.30(1–2): 99–115.
94.
SchwartzP.1991. The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. Doubleday, New York, NY.
95.
SchwartzP.OgilvyJ.. 1998. Plotting your scenarios. FaheyL.RandallR., eds. Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 57–80.
96.
ShafferB.HillmanA.. 2000. The development of business‐government strategies by diversified firms. Strateg. Manag. J.21(2): 175–190.
97.
SmythJ.2020. The battle to wean the world off China's rare earths. Available at https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/the-battle-to-wean-the-world-off-china-s-rare-earths-20200915-p55vp0 (accessed date September 17, 2020).
SraiJ.GregoryM.. 2008. A supply network configuration perspective on international supply chain development. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.28(5): 386–411.
100.
SturgeonT.Van BiesebroeckJ.GereffiG.. 2008. Value chains, networks and clusters: Reframing the global automotive industry. Journal of Economic Geography8: 297–321.
101.
SuddabyR.CoraiolaD.HarveyC.FosterW.. 2019. History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J.41(3): 530–556.
102.
TerpendR.TylerB.KrauseD.HandfieldR.. 2008. Buyer–supplier relationships: Derived value over two decades. J. Supply Chain Manag.44(2): 28–55.
103.
UmK.KimS.. 2019. The effects of supply chain collaboration on performance and transaction cost advantage: The moderation and nonlinear effects of governance mechanisms. Int. J. Prod. Econ.217: 97–111.
104.
van derHeijdenK.2005. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, 2nd edn.John Wiley & Sons, New York.
105.
VillenaV.ChoiT.RevillaE.. 2019. Revisiting interorganizational trust: Is more always better or could more be worse?J. Manage.45(2): 752–785.
106.
VillenaV.RevillaE.ChoiT.. 2011. The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. J. Oper. Manag.29(6): 561–576.
107.
von derGrachtH.DarkowI.. 2010. Scenarios for the logistics services industry – A Delphi‐based analysis for 2025. Int. J. Prod. Econ.127(1): 46–59.
WiegelW.BamfordD.. 2015. The role of guanxi in buyer–supplier relationships in Chinese small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises – A resource‐based perspective. Prod. Plann. Control26(4): 308–327.
110.
WilliamsonO.1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. Am. J. Sociol.87(3): 548–577.
111.
WrightG.BradfieldR.CairnsG.. 2013. Does the intuitive logics method – and its enhancements – Produce “effective” scenarios?Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.80(4): 631–642.
