Abstract

The global supply chain process has been badly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, firms search for factors that influence supply chain resilience and improve firm operational performance. The current research develops an integrated resilient supply chain model that combines factors underpinned DART model, innovation, digital technology, and value co-creation to investigate supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research framework was empirically tested with a data set of 329 responses from employees working in logistics firms. the study find that supply chain resilience is determined by value co-creation, the DART model, innovation, and digital technology. The factors underpinning the DART model, including dialogue, access, risk assessment, and transparency, have positively impacted value co-creation. The structural model shows that dialogue has a positive impact on developing value co-creation between manufacturing firms and stakeholders, Empirical investigation revealed that value co-creation in supply chain operations is estimated by dialogue, access, risk assessment, transparency, innovation, and digital technology and revealed substantial variance R^2 71.9% in measuring value co-creation. This research is significant as it develops a resilient supply chain model with the combination of the DART model, innovation, digital technology, and value co-creation and investigates supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although current research contributes to theory, practice, and method, disclosing research limitations opens numerous avenues for future researchers. This study does not claim to include all factors that impact the value co-creation process in supply chain operations. For instance, other factors, such as IT infrastructure, commitment, and integrative quality, may positively influence value co-creation. Second, supply chain resilience is determined by value co-creation and network capability. Therefore, the research encourages academicians and policymakers to investigate the supply chain resilience phenomenon with other market-oriented facts. future researchers are suggested to investigate the current research model in longitudinal method.

Keywords: COVID-19, dialogue, network capability, resilience, risk assessment, transparency.

JEL Classification: M15, R41, O35.

Cite as: Abdalatif, O., & Yamin, M. A (2022). Enhancing Value Co-Creation Through the Lens of DART Model, Innovation, and Digital Technology: An Integrative Supply Chain Resilient Model Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 30-44. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2022.4-04

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Aamer, A. M., Al-Awlaqi, M. A., Affia, I., Arumsari, S., & Mandahawi, N. (2021). The internet of things in the food supply chain: adoption challenges. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(8), 2521-2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Afraz, M. F., Bhatti, S. H., Ferraris, A., & Couturier, J. (2021). The impact of supply chain innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Agarwal, R., & Selen, W. (2009). Dynamic capability building in service value networks for achieving service innovation. Decision sciences, 40(3), 431-475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Bader, A. A., & Mohammad, A. Y. Y. (2019). The impact of task technology fit on employee job performance. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 140-159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International journal of production research, 49(18), 5375-5393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K. S., & Craighead, C. W. (2011). An Empirically Derived Framework of Global Supply Resiliency. Journal of business logistics, 32(4), 374-391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 833-856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Brandon‐Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). A contingent resource‐based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 55-73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Cichosz, M., Wallenburg, C. M., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2020). Digital transformation at logistics service providers: barriers, success factors and leading practices. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(2), 209-238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., Hingley, M., Vilalta-Perdomo, E. L., Ramsden, G., & Twigg, D. (2020). Sustainability of supply chains in the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) pandemic: lessons and trends. Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Fernando, Y., & Chukai, C. (2018). Value co-creation, goods and service tax (GST) impacts on sustainable logistic performance. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 28, 92-102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(23), 382-388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Grandy, G., & Levit, T. (2015). Value co-creation and stakeholder complexity: what strategy can learn from churches. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 10(3), 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Green, K. W., Whitten, D., & Inman, R. A. (2008). The impact of logistics performance on organizational performance in a supply chain context. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 317-327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Hair Jr, J. F., Babin, B., Money, A. H., & Samouel, P. (2003). Essentials of business research methods: Johns Wiley & Sons. Inc., United States of America. [Google Scholar]
17. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European business review. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Hopkins, J. L. (2021). An investigation into emerging industry 4.0 technologies as drivers of supply chain innovation in Australia. Computers in Industry, 125, 103323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57(3), 829-846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Ju, Y., Hou, H., & Yang, J. (2020). Integration quality, value co-creation and resilience in logistics service supply chains: moderating role of digital technology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(2), 364-380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Karmaker, C. L., Ahmed, T., Ahmed, S., Ali, S. M., Moktadir, M. A., & Kabir, G. (2021). Improving supply chain sustainability in the context of COVID-19 pandemic in an emerging economy: Exploring drivers using an integrated model. Sustainable production and consumption, 26, 411-427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Kauppila, O. P. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: Using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 151-167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Liu, W., Wang, S., Lin, Y., Xie, D., & Zhang, J. (2020). Effect of intelligent logistics policy on shareholder value: Evidence from Chinese logistics companies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 137, 101928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Masa’deh, R. E., Al-Henzab, J., Tarhini, A., & Obeidat, B. Y. (2018). The associations among market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(8), 3117-3142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Mitrega, M., Forkmann, S., Ramos, C., & Henneberg, S. C. (2012). Networking capability in business relationships—Concept and scale development. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 739-751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Partanen, J., Kohtamäki, M., Patel, P. C., & Parida, V. (2020). Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow. International Journal of Production Economics, 221, 107470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Partouche-Sebban, J., Vessal, S. R., & Bernhard, F. (2021). When co-creation pays off: the effect of co-creation on well-being, work performance and team resilience. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A., & Chen, I. J. (2008). Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of operations management, 26(1), 45-64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Pillai, R., & Sivathanu, B. (2020). Adoption of internet of things (IoT) in the agriculture industry deploying the BRT framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(4), 1341-1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. [Google Scholar]
32. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Rahi, S. (2015). Moderating role of brand image with relation to internet banking and customer loyalty: a case of branchless banking. The Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 20(3): 131 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Rahi, S., & Ghani, M. A. (2018). Does gamified elements influence on user’s intention to adopt and intention to recommend internet banking?. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Rahi, S., & Ghani, M. A. (2018). The role of UTAUT, DOI, perceived technology security and game elements in internet banking adoption. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 15(4), 338-356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Rahi, S., Ghani, M. A., & Ngah, A. H. (2020a). Factors propelling the adoption of internet banking: the role of e-customer service, website design, brand image and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 33(4), 549-569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Rahi, S., Ghani, M., & Ngah, A. (2018). A structural equation model for evaluating user’s intention to adopt internet banking and intention to recommend technology. Accounting, 4(4), 139-152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Rahi, S., Khan, M. M., & Alghizzawi, M. (2020b). Extension of technology continuance theory (TCT) with task technology fit (TTF) in the context of Internet banking user continuance intention. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38(4), 986-1004.  [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Rahi, S., Mansour, M. M. O., Alghizzawi, M., & Alnaser, F. M. (2019). Integration of UTAUT model in internet banking adoption context: The mediating role of performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.  13(3), 411-435.  [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Rahi, S., Mansour, M. M. O., Alharafsheh, M., & Alghizzawi, M. (2021). The post-adoption behavior of internet banking users through the eyes of self-determination theory and expectation confirmation model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management.  34(6), 1874-1892   [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of business research, 84, 196-205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Ren, S. J., Hu, C., Ngai, E. W. T., & Zhou, M. (2015). An empirical analysis of inter-organisational value co-creation in a supply chain: a process perspective. Production Planning & Control, 26(12), 969-980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research Review, 37(3), 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Saarijärvi, H., Karjaluoto, H., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Extending customer relationship management: from empowering firms to empowering customers. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 15(2), 140-158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Schreiner, M., Kale, P., & Corsten, D. (2009). What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success?. Strategic management journal, 30(13), 1395-1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Semrau, T., & Sigmund, S. (2012). Networking ability and the financial performance of new ventures: A mediation analysis among younger and more mature firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(4), 335-354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Singh, A. (2022). Work engagement, affective commitment, and career satisfaction: the mediating role of knowledge sharing in context of SIEs. Benchmarking: An International Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Singh, N. P., & Singh, S. (2019). Building supply chain risk resilience: Role of big data analytics in supply chain disruption mitigation. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(7), 2318-2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Sinkovics, R. R., Kuivalainen, O., & Roath, A. S. (2018). Value co-creation in an outsourcing arrangement between manufacturers and third party logistics providers: resource commitment, innovation and collaboration. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.  33(4), 563-573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Sweiss, M. I. K., & Yamin, M. A. Y. (2020). The influence of organisational and individual factors on organisational innovation with moderating role of innovation orientation. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 23(1), 103-126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Tian, H., Otchere, S. K., Coffie, C. P., Mensah, I. A., & Baku, R. K. (2021). Supply chain integration, interfirm value co-creation and firm performance nexus in Ghanaian SMEs: mediating roles of stakeholder pressure and innovation capability. Sustainability, 13(4), 2351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Utami, H. N., Alamanos, E., & Kuznesof, S. (2021). ‘A social justice logic’: how digital commerce enables value co-creation at the bottom of the pyramid. Journal of Marketing Management, 37(9-10), 816-855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Yamin, M. (2020a). Examining the role of transformational leadership and entrepreneurial orientation on employee retention with moderating role of competitive advantage. Management Science Letters, 10(2), 313-326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Yamin, M. A. Y. (2019). The mediating role of ethical organisational climate between HRM practices and HR outcomes in public sector of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business Excellence, 19(4), 557-573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Yamin, M. A. Y. (2020b). Examining the effect of organisational innovation on employee creativity and firm performance: Moderating role of knowledge sharing between employee creativity and employee performance. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 22(3), 447-467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Yamin, M. A. Y. (2020c). The relationship between RIGHT ethical behavior perspective, demographic factors, and BEST ethical performance. International Review of Management and Marketing, 10(1), 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Yamin, M. A. Y., & Alyoubi, B. A. (2020). Adoption of telemedicine applications among Saudi citizens during COVID-19 pandemic: An alternative health delivery system. Journal of infection and public health, 13(12), 1845-1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Yamin, M. A. Y., & Mahasneh, M. S. (2018). The impact of values-based leadership on ethical loyalty in Saudi Arabian health organizations. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(3), 6. [Google Scholar]
60. Yamin, M. A. Y., & Sweiss, M. I. K. (2020). Investigating Employee creative performance with integration of DeLone and McLean Information system success model and Technology acceptance model: The moderating role of Creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Business Excellence, 22(3), 396-417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Yazdanparast, A., Manuj, I., & Swartz, S. M. (2010). Co-creating logistics value: a service-dominant logic perspective. International Journal of Logistics Management, 21(3), 375-403.  [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]