1 Implementing Supply Chain Technologies in ...

Implementing Supply Chain Technologies in Emerging Markets: An Institutional Theory Perspective John Saldanha, John E. Mello, A. Michael Knemeyer, T.A.S. Vijayaraghaven Article Information: John Saldanha, John E. Mello, A. Michael Knemeyer, T.A.S. Vijayaraghaven (2015), “Implementing Supply Chain Technologies in Emerging Markets: An Institutional Theory Perspective” Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 1. Abstract Supply chain technology (SCT) facilitates information transfer within and across firm boundaries. However, institutional environments in emerging markets give rise to challenges that inhibit the implementation of SCT and the consequent realization of its benefits. Unfortunately, there is a lack of understanding as to the nature or the extent of these implementation challenges. We undertook a grounded theory study in the emerging market of India to investigate how SCT is implemented when subjected to prevailing institutional pressures. Based on an analysis of interviews with 50 supply chain managers, we find that early adopters of SCT experience significant and numerous unmet expectations associated with SCT implementation. These unmet expectations arise from competing institutional logics with the resultant isomorphic pressure causing the juxtaposition of two incompatible supply chains in India. A key finding of this study contradicts extant research, supporting recent work in emerging markets, to suggest a need to reassess our mental models developed in the West and conceptualize de novo models that are sensitive to the institutional environments of emerging markets. Keywords: emerging markets; technology management; supply chain management; institutional theory; structured interviewing; grounded theory

1

INTRODUCTION The specific function of supply chain technology (SCT) is to generate value by enabling information transfer within and across firm boundaries (Rai, Patnayakuni, & Seth, 2006; Sanders, 2008; Subramani, 2004). SCT refers to “the tools and/or techniques that may be implemented in order to effectuate integrated supply chain management” (Autry et al., 2010, p. 523). Included in this definition are such information technologies (IT) and information systems (IS) as barcoding, warehouse management systems (WMS), and transportation management systems (TMS). Therefore, firms implement SCT in an effort to facilitate cross-functional collaboration and to coordinate business processes with members of their supply chains. The use of SCT leads to improved financial performance of firms in developed markets (Dehning, Richardson, & Zmud, 2007). Likewise, in emerging markets, SCT can be critical to building firms’ business values and thus to their competitive successes (Prasad & Heales, 2010). For example, in their study of supply chain management practices in India, Sahay and Mohan (2003) recognized that SCT is a necessity to compete. Yet SCT investment is very low for firms in India (Sahay & Mohan, 2003). Firms in India are more likely to implement standalone software than integrated SCT, adversely affecting integration both within and across the firm (Sahay, Cavale, & Mohan, 2003; Sahay, Gupta, & Mohan, 2006). India’s institutional environment presents challenges to SCT implementation that are distinct from, and considerably more daunting than, those faced by firms in developed markets (Kilgore, Joseph, & Metersky, 2007; Shah & Suresh, 2009). The challenges of implementing SCT in India include: the minimal use of IT of any kind by the vast majority of firms, especially by small and medium-sized enterprises (Singh, Narain, & Yadav, 2010); consequent lack of external integration of SCT among members of a supply chain (Sahay, Gupta, & Mohan, 2006; Shah & Suresh, 2009); poor 2

data quality in relation to forecasts, shipments, replenishments, and inventories (Kilgore, Joseph, & Metersky, 2007; Shah & Suresh, 2009); and the shortfall of logistics talent, accentuated by minimal training opportunities (Johnson, 2007; Venkatesh, Bala, & Sykes, 2010). Consequently, firms likely resort to experimentation (Khanna, 2014), in order to determine how to best adapt implemented SCT to suit their specific contexts in an emerging market. Overall, our discipline’s understanding of how a firm’s management must implement and then adapt SCT to suit an emerging market context remains incipient (Schoenherr, 2009). Consequently, the few firms that are early adopters of SCT in emerging markets (Sahay, Gupta, & Mohan, 2006) know little about how the specific challenges of adapting SCT (during implementation) relate to the institutional environment of their country. For this reason, we undertook a grounded theory study to investigate the following research question: How do early adopter firms adapt SCT to prevailing institutional pressures in emerging markets? In the context of this study, we define early adopter firms as those that are among the first few to use SCT in emerging markets. This study focuses on the managerial activities that occur after the firm has adopted SCT and is engaged in implementing it. We define the adaptation process as a firm’s attempt to modify the SCT and/or its associated processes to India’s unique institutional environment. This paper contributes to the literature by analyzing data collected through interviews with 50 supply chain executives in India and thereby develops a conceptual model as a first step to building theory that explains SCT implementation in the emerging market context. This model improves our understanding of the process wherein firms adapt SCT in the presence of significant institutional pressures typical in emerging markets (Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008). Understanding such an adaptation process is important because (1) adaptation itself shapes the development of those technologies; (2) operating efficiencies

3

achieved by technology are reliant on effectively modifying that technology in order to overcome the institutional pressures in emerging markets; and (3) adaptations of technology affect a firm’s organizational structure and processes (Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). A PRIORI SENSITIZING LITERATURE Before exploring how firms in India implement SCT, relevant theoretical domains were reviewed in order to provide a priori theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987). As supply chains are embedded in the relationships and institutions that comprise a national economy (Khanna, Kogan, & Palepu, 2006), our inquiry began by considering the business environment in India as reflective of the country’s institutional environment (Scott, 2001). India’s Institutional Environment Because India is an emerging market, the potential for dynamic and sometimes contradictory political and regulatory institutional environments should be considered (Hitt et al., 2000; Hoskisson et al., 2000). The supply chain conditions in India include an increasing use of IT, constraining tax and regulatory regimes, growing competition from multi-nationals, unorganized and fragmented supply chain networks, and low levels of operational sophistication and expertise (Kapoor & Ellinger, 2004; Sahay, Gupta, & Mohan, 2006; Sahay & Mohan, 2003; Shah & Suresh, 2009). These conditions suggest that the country’s regulatory and market environments exert coercive and normative pressures that have, in turn, influenced the implementation of SCT (Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; Liu et al., 2010). The literature recognizes the need for users to adapt technology to institutional environments in order to improve job effectiveness (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Berente & Yoo, 2012; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). However, there are no studies available to guide management’s decision-making regarding SCT

4

implementation in emerging markets, which can be characterized by competing, contradictory, institutional pressures (Hitt et al., 2000; Hoskisson et al., 2000; Luo, 2004; Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008; Wright et al., 2005). Most studies consider only how individual technologies are used within firms (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). However, SCT requires intra- and inter-firm coordination (Autry et al., 2010; Fawcett et al., 2011). Adoption and Implementation The adoption and implementation literature includes a stream of literature focusing on environmental factors such as uncertainty and heterogeneity that affect technology adoption (Grover & Goslar, 1993; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). The technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework provides a structural basis for adapting SCT in response to environmental factors (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990). This framework can be related to the institutional environmental context whereby industrial (normative), competitive (mimetic), and regulatory (coercive) forces could influence the implementation of SCT (Zhu & Kraemer, 2005; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xu, 2006). Cooper and Zmud (1990) demonstrate the utility of Kwon and Zmud’s (1987) IT-implementation stages model showing that interactions between managerial tasks do affect implementation. Though neither the TOE nor the implementation stages model provide a suitable framework for SCT implementation in emerging markets, they helped sensitize our inquiry to the possible interaction between the primacy of managerial tasks as shaped by India’s institutional environment and the implementation of SCT. METHODOLOGY The current study uses a systematic inductive research approach in order to facilitate theoretical abstraction from field data through a process of constant comparative analysis. This

5

inductive approach is appropriate when examining phenomena where little relevant theory exists (Suddaby, 2006; Gligor & Autry, 2012). Through the constant comparative process, the researcher explores theoretical similarities and differences between interview passages, field notes, and other data sources in order to develop higher-order theoretical terms (categories and properties) as a basis for interpreting and explaining behavior (Gephart, 2004; Glaser, 1978). Thus, theory emerges from data obtained in the field rather than from a priori assumptions developed before the research began (Kaufmann & Denk, 2011). The current research is guided by Glaser’s (1978, 2001) grounded theory methodology, as this inductive approach has fewer strictures on data coding and constitutes a more direct way to develop theory so that the researcher can pursue a path of inquiry that is not predetermined. This approach is distinct from that advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1998) (see Mello and Flint [2009] for a detailed discussion of the differences). We began by selecting a phenomenon to research, as defined by our central research question: How do early adopter firms adapt SCT to prevailing institutional pressures in emerging markets? Research Setting and Participants India was selected as the research context because it is a major emerging market in which firms are in the process of implementing SCT. In order to gain a basic understanding of how managers approach SCT implementation, we selected three firms as the initial data sources, each representing a distinct business type: a tier-1 supplier, a manufacturer, and a retailer. The firms selected are among the largest in their respective industries in India. Based on the literature (Sahay, Cavale, & Mohan, 2003; Sahay, Gupta, & Mohan, 2006; Singh, Narain, & Yadav, 2010), we reasoned that given their greater financial resources, these larger firms would be more likely

6

than small firms to be early adopters. And, therefore, large firms could provide us with access to individual employees working on SCT implementation. Our sample included representatives of both middle and senior management. Middlemanagement participants were selected based on the belief that they would be directly involved in their firms’ day-to-day operations and that involvement of this nature would yield the richest field data. We also included senior managers, reasoning that they could provide us with insights into high-level strategic decisions pertaining to the implementation of SCT in emerging markets. Data Collection An unstructured, open-ended format was used for the initial interviews, which typically lasted from 45 minutes to one hour. We used an interview guide that presented open-ended questions for the initial interviews and focused on exploring relevant issues with the participants. The data collection and analysis progressed in parallel; and we added more structured questions and prompts to guide us as additional insights arose (Patton, 2002). The research team took field notes during the facility visits and interviews. Beyond recording basic information such as the physical setting, the activities taking place there, and information about the participants under observation, our notes also included insights, interpretations, and initial analyses of what was happening in the setting and what these observations might mean to our findings (Patton, 2002; Russell, 2002). Theoretical Sampling Theoretical sampling procedures as developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) were used to guide the research. Participants were chosen based on their potential to enrich category development and saturation (Kaufmann & Denk, 2011). Data collection and theoretical sampling

7

were conducted in tandem: as data collection progressed, theoretical sampling was used to guide the choice of additional participants (Gligor & Autry, 2012). In following this approach, theoretical sampling memos were written to capture our thoughts about the direction of our findings and about the types of additional participants most likely to help us fully develop categories and properties. Table 1 reviews the characteristics of the firms (names disguised) used in this study. ------------------------------------Insert Table 1 Approximately Here-----------------------------------The data collected from the initial three firms revealed that India’s supply chains may be fragmented – formed from a mix of legacy manual supply chain processes and SCT enabled automated processes. This led us to sample firms of different sizes across a variety of industries to determine if this phenomenon is pervasive in India. Simultaneous data analysis revealed 3PLs as contributing to the fragmentation. Therefore, we sampled a wide variety of these firms. As the data collection progressed, we observed that the senior managers provided a greater depth and breadth of quality data than did the mid-level managers. Thus, although we continued to interview mid-level managers in order to collect data about their hands-on experience, our final sample included a higher percentage of senior managers. A total of 50 participants were interviewed, representing a diverse set of viewpoints. Several participants were re-interviewed to ensure that theoretical saturation was achieved (Table 2). ------------------------------------Insert Table 2 Approximately Here-----------------------------------Data Analysis For the data analysis, we followed the guidelines established by Glaser (1978, 2001). Coding was conducted using Atlas.Ti, a qualitative coding software that allows researchers to record codes and to work collaboratively. We began our analysis after open coding the initial 8

three interviews from WheelCo (Table 2). Open coding is breaking down data into small “meaning units” which are later assembled into higher-level concepts such as conditions, categories, and properties (Glaser, 2001). We did not have any predetermined codes, as per Glaser’s (1978) recommendation for open coding and as commonly employed in qualitative coding procedures (e.g., Carter & Dresner, 2001). Instead, every code was assigned based on our interpretation of what the participant was relating to the interviewer. During this process, we identified more than 1,000 open codes. Open coding continued until uniformities were revealed through our constant comparison of the data. At that point we directed the focus of our analysis toward selective coding in order to identify core categories and properties. Figure 1 depicts the coding process from open coding to the final selection of categories and properties. ------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 Approximately Here-----------------------------------As the research progressed, we wrote memos about the emerging concepts. For example, Melding was one of our initial core concepts, but it did not hold up under further investigation in terms of explaining the majority of the behavior in the phenomenon. These memos also included information from our field notes (though primarily based on our codes). This process started early in the open-coding phase and continued throughout the research. We compared the findings across the widening set of participating firms and individuals by sorting the memos in an effort to find underlying uniformities in the data that might suggest ways to group the concepts (Figure 1). Following the established process of sorting, we compared the categories in each memo against those in the others, identified relationships between the categories, and put the categories and their properties into a logical order (Charmaz, 2006). During the analysis phase, we continued to refine our categories and properties through the constant comparison method (Figure 1) (Gligor & Autry, 2012). During this process we

9

looked for emerging themes and concepts by comparing incidents across the data in order to determine which facts were similar or different and thereby contributed properties that further the categories’ explanatory power (Goulding, 2002; Kaufmann & Denk, 2011). As underlying uniformities emerged, we conducted a selective coding process (Figure 1), through which all other subordinate categories and their properties became systematically linked with the core category(ies). During the selective coding process, we focused on our core categories and their properties (Gligor & Autry, 2012). Our objective was to look for one or a few categories that subsumed all the other theoretical concepts identified (Glaser, 2001). The process of selective coding went through multiple iterations as new categories/properties emerged and existing ones were refined, absorbed into others, or eliminated. The data collection and analysis continued until the final category and its properties had reached saturation (Goulding, 2002). We determined that saturation had been reached after a final iteration of theoretical sampling and data analysis failed to add any new concepts or information to the existing category and its properties (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). That is, to ensure that saturation had been achieved, we performed an additional 10 interviews. And, as no new concepts emerged, we determined that saturation had been achieved. The core category appeared to subsume all the emergent concepts explaining most of the behavior that we observed (Kaufmann & Denk, 2011). In concluding the research, we wrote memos concerning our overall findings and diagramed the resulting theory. Methodological Rigor Glaser (1978, 2001) maintains that the criteria for evaluating the method used in this type of inductive study requires establishing fit, relevance, workability, easy modification, parsimony, and scope of explanatory power. Each of these criteria is detailed in Table 3, adapted from Flint, 10

Woodruff, and Gardial (2002), and Mello and Flint (2009). We established fit, relevance, and workability with the help of six academic content experts in the areas of supply chain management, supply chain technology, Indian business conditions, and grounded theory methodology. We also employed eight research participants from WheelCo and MetalCo who reviewed our findings to verify that our interpretation reflected actual practice, was relevant to the theory, and stayed true to the data. Our strict adherence to the methodological recommendations set by Glaser (1978, 2001) ensured the fit, relevance, workability, modifiability, parsimony, and scope of our research. ------------------------------------Insert Table 3 Approximately Here-----------------------------------INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT A complete, grounded theory study explains the core category in theoretical terms and properties, and provides context with respect to the conditions under which the phenomenon is observed (Charmaz, 2006). Supply chains are embedded in the relationships and institutions that comprise a national economy (Khanna, Kogan, & Palepu, 2006). And, as noted previously, we were sensitized to the pressures arising from the uncertainty related to the institutional environment typical of emerging markets (Hitt et al., 2000; Hoskisson et al., 2000; Luo, 2004; Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008; Wright et al., 2005). This uncertainty adversely affects supply chain operations (Kaufmann, Michel, & Carter, 2009; Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). India is no exception. Shah and Suresh (2009, p. 9) describe “the poor state of logistics in India,” which they attribute to the “unholy equilibrium” between public policy and private industry. This view is supported by our analysis of the interview data, which suggests that external forces are shaping the supply chains in India. The categories and the properties associated with them that emerged from our interpretation of the data suggested the presence of institutional 11

pressures. Therefore, we referenced institutional theory in order to guide and refine our theoretical development of the conditions surrounding implementation of SCT in India. In this way, we were able to refine the theory and verify our interpretation of the observed behavior. Three reasons led us to use institutional theory as a lens for explaining SCT implementation in India. First, institutional theory provides a rationale for a firm’s decision to implement technology or technological standards to manage supply chain processes (Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; Huang, Gattiker, & Schroeder, 2010; Liu et al., 2010; Scott, 2001; Sodero, Rabinovich, & Sinha, 2013). Second, this theory provides a basis for understanding how institutional environments shape and influence the nature of marketing channels, or in the case of this study, supply chains (Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Third, the theory sheds light on how competing institutional objectives can influence the loose coupling of technology and processes (Berente & Yoo, 2012; Bhakoo & Choi, 2013). A prominent aspect of institutional theory as it relates to the current study is the concept of institutional isomorphism. According to this concept, organizations operating in a similar environment are likely to implement similar business practices due to exposure to similar institutional pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Our data provide evidence supporting these effects of institutional pressure on India’s supply chains. In Table 4, we present representative quotes from the data depicting institutional isomorphic pressures that are shaping two distinct supply chains in India, traditional and modern. ------------------------------------Insert Table 4 Approximately Here-----------------------------------Traditional Supply Chain The traditional supply chain is largely a product of India’s federal, state, and local tax structure (Sachan, Sahay, & Sharma, 2005; Shah & Suresh, 2009). Coercive pressure relates to 12

formal and informal pressures in the shape of constraints placed by an organization on other organizations that are dependent on it (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). When such constraints are enforced as laws or impositions, they are likely to cause firms to change processes in ways that may entail restructuring their supply chains (Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). The Indian government’s role in establishing the tax structure and regulation of interstate commerce has played a direct role in effecting the fragmented nature of the traditional supply chain. The evidence supported by our data (Table 4) paints a picture of a fragmented multi-tier supply chain. Participants in our study, as well as the literature, often use the term “unorganized” to describe supply chain operations in India (Shah & Suresh, 2009). For example, the indirect subsidization of road freight means that most freight is transported over the road (Shah & Suresh, 2009). However, our data (Table 4) and the literature attest to the restrictive regulatory environment that has resulted in an “[U]norganized trucking industry … operating with low margins, low skilled manpower and ad hoc practices” (Shah & Suresh, 2009, p. 34). Fragmentation pervades the fundamental supply function in which products flow from supplier plants to small traditional family-owned stores, Kiranas, via the following circuitous route. The supplier plant supplies a consolidation and freight (C&F) agent, whose role is central sales tax (CST) avoidance. The C&F agent then sells to a category-specific distributor called a stockist, who in turn, sells to the Kiranas. To avoid paying CST, a supplier must have a C&F agent in every state in which it operates. Consequently, the traditional supply chain network has been heavily influenced by the tax structure as opposed to distance or demand characteristics (Krishnan, 2001; Mulky, 2013; Shah & Suresh, 2009; Sachan, Sahay, & Sharma, 2005). Moreover, the sales tax on inter-firm transfers of products has resulted in vertically integrated firms versus the more efficient structure of a network of firms focusing on core

13

competencies (Shah & Suresh, 2009). The continued existence of the traditional supply chain is principally based on factors such as low rental rates and low labor costs (Mulky, 2013). Consequently, the penetration of the modern supply chain format is less than 8% (Mulky, 2013). Modern Supply Chain In contrast to the traditional supply chain, we observed firms modernizing their supply chain operations, including the implementation of SCT. For example, according to Anil, “WheelCo was a pioneer in implementing SAP in India,” and according to Rajiv, “[GrocerCo’s SCT] is one of the more advanced system setups you would find.” Likewise, Xavier added, “We are the only [less-than-truckload trucking] company having this ERP system across the country.” And, Babar, CEO of ReeferCo, noted that “We are the leaders [for SCT use] in this [temperature controlled] business today.” Indian firms are looking to global benchmarks for guidance (St. John, Cannon, & Pouder, 2001). In addition, these firms are under greater competitive pressure due to the government’s economic liberalization policies (circa 1991) providing foreign direct investment and other fiscal incentives that have attracted major global brands from several industries including retail, automotive, consumer goods, food, and logistics services (Shah & Suresh, 2009). The opening up of markets to global brands has led early adopter firms, such as those in our sample, to imitate global best-in-class multi-national corporations and pursue implementation of SCT enabled supply chain networks and processes (Table 4). In classical institutional theory, pressure to emulate successful competitors primarily arises from a quest for social legitimacy even when the outcome has not been evaluated and could very well be less than optimal (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002; Liu et al., 2010). However, we observed a neo-institutional perspective at work in our sample, referred to by Ketokivi and Schroeder (2004) as the economic 14

paradigm, whereby the “mimickers are strictly economically motivated. That is, they seek economic efficiency” (p. 66). The participants described the tangible economic benefits expected from using SCT as including improved data accuracy, faster response times, greater visibility, improved systems integration and data sharing, more accurate accounting, and improved analytical capability. In Table 4, we provide representative examples of how the participants described their acquisition of supply chain expertise from progressive firms in developed economies as it relates to: implementing SCT (Waris); modern single-echelon supply chain network (Om); and supply chain best practices (Kabir). Normative pressure results from a professional community’s accepted practices in regard to hiring people with specific qualifications including formal education, and from industrial norms such as accreditation from industry agencies (Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Such practices lend credibility to a firm by legitimizing its operations (Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Our data include numerous instances of participants describing their firms as changing their hiring practices in response to these normative pressures. For example, some firms are seeking to hire more graduates with management degrees, including those from European and US business schools. Coincidentally, we also noted in the memos that several of the participants were themselves graduates of British and US business schools and that they were active in industry organizations such as the Institute for Supply Management and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. Juxtaposition of Modern and Traditional Supply Chains “Institutional logics provide the master principles of society” (Greenwood et al., 2010, p. 521). Researchers have observed that institutional logics work simultaneously at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., state, industry, and organization) (Berente & Yoo, 2012; Friedland & Alford, 15

1991). Institutional logic at the state level “refers to the basic orientation of the state in securing social and political order” (Greenwood et al., 2010, p. 523). In India, we observed two competing institutional state logics. The Indian government is wary of dismantling the regulatory framework supporting the traditional supply chain in fear of rendering unemployable the low-skilled workforce that supports the manual processes inherent to these supply chains (Shah & Suresh, 2009). The Japanese Keiretsu system performs a similar social welfare role by providing jobs and income to disadvantaged social groups (Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Social welfare logic is a type of institutional logic previously observed in social service organizations (Pache & Santos, 2013), which, because of the theoretical device of institutional logics can be extended to the level of the state (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Hence, the institutional logic whereby the Indian government drives these policies can be construed as a kind of social welfare (Berente & Yoo, 2012; Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Even most warehousing services are owned and operated by the government primarily for procuring and storing food with the purpose of ensuring food security (Shah & Suresh, 2009). Conversely, the Indian government can be seen as pursuing a market logic by opening up India to major global brands with the goal of increasing the competitiveness of the domestic industry. Similar institutional logic was seen with the Spanish government’s opening of its markets as a precursor to joining the European Community (Greenwood et al., 2010). Institutions change slowly and incrementally such that it may be incumbent on firms to adjust their behaviors to those of institutions (Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Hence, firms in India must address the juxtaposition of incompatible supply chains—the traditional social welfare-driven supply chain and the modern market-driven supply chain—which may lead to

16

diminished performance due to contextual misalignment (Sousa & Voss, 2008). In such cases, institutional theorists have observed that firms loosely couple formal value-adding activities with modified processes (Berente & Yoo, 2012; Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Pache & Santos, 2013). In our data analysis, we observed unmet expectations emerging due to the constraints imposed by the underlying structure, processes, and conditions of the traditional supply chain on the SCT implemented by early adopter firms and their related modern supply chain processes. ADAPTATION Shah and Suresh (2009) describe the dilemma faced by Indian firms who must, “learn from the progressive companies operating in developed economies. But at the same time solutions that have been tried and tested in the developed economies may not work in India” (p. 34). Our interpretation of the data led us back to the institutional theory literature. We considered how the theory gave structure to the conditions of the institutional environment and competing logics in India that shaped the incompatible supply chains. Our interpretive analysis of the data revealed evidence of several unmet expectations arising as a consequence of the juxtaposition of incompatible supply chains. These unmet expectations led the participating firms to adapt SCT by employing coping strategies, whereby the SCT was loosely coupled with the processes and activities that it had been introduced to enable (Figure 2). ------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 Approximately Here-----------------------------------Unmet Expectations We define unmet expectations as a disparity between the perceived benefits anticipated before the adoption of SCT and the actual benefits seen post-adoption. Our data indicate that

17

unmet expectations are affected by (1) IT infrastructure, (2) labor, and (3) information-sharing. Table 5 provides representative quotes that pertain to the role of these factors. ------------------------------------Insert Table 5 Approximately Here-----------------------------------IT Infrastructure. India’s IT infrastructure is a direct result of the country’s status as an emerging market that traditionally relied on manual processes before liberalizing its economy (Kapoor & Ellinger, 2004; Shah & Suresh, 2009). Our data show that infrastructure external to the firm also causes problems with implementation ultimately leading to unmet expectations. For example, Ram from GrocerCo discussed the reliability of Internet availability for linking distribution centers with an ERP system (Table 5). Xavier commented that ParcelCo does not have a fully automated WMS because the firm is subject to frequent interruptions in its electricity and Internet services: [WMS] is not totally automated because you would again have issues of electricity along with the Internet connectivity. And, you cannot allow work stoppage because you don’t have certain infrastructure in place. Even with vehicle tracking, the availability of IT infrastructure remains an issue, as Yash from TankerCo explains: [U]ltimately all the GPS systems are connected through [the] Internet… My experience is that nobody has been able to give me a foolproof service or a 100% satisfactory service. These are just two of the many examples that our participants offered regarding how the state of IT infrastructure causes the SCT being implemented to fall short of expectations. Thus, it appears likely that undeveloped IT infrastructure in emerging markets leads to unmet expectations in relation to newly adopted SCT.

18

Labor. The limited supply of personnel skilled in IT is a major obstacle to realizing the value of SCT and, therefore, leads to unmet expectations. Yash’s comments (Table 5) typify the sentiments of our participants regarding this issue. In addition, the participants lamented the lack of labor skilled in logistics and supply chain operations, which contributed to the SCT failing to meet their firms’ expectations. Not only is this lack of operational expertise a problem within the firm and between the firm and members of its supply chain, it is also a characteristic of industry in India more generally. Prem provides an anecdote that typifies operational problems due to managers unskilled in logistics operations sabotaging the value of SCT solutions for distribution operations particularly in regard to time-sensitive delivery (Table 5). Turnover is another problem. Even after personnel are trained, high turnover affects the implementation of SCT. Chand from WheelCo highlights this challenge when he notes that “20% of cases [shipments] get stuck [cannot be unloaded] because the advanced shipment notice has not been entered.” This problem arises with inbound shipments from suppliers even though WheelCo has “trained many suppliers on the SRM [Supplier Relationship Management] module,” due to the high turnover (Table 5). These are just a small sampling of the many anecdotes provided by participants in our data. Thus, a lack of logistics and IT expertise constrains the successful implementation and use of SCT. Information-Sharing. Hari from MetalCo succinctly captures the attitudes toward information sharing that we found leading to unmet expectations of implemented SCT: As a whole in India, you will find that [information] sharing is at low levels. Sharing between two organizations is a big challenge for us.

19

Consequently, we see that the actual utility of SCT falls short of firms’ expectations due to an environment characterized by limited information sharing. On this point, Prem provides an example of how poor attitudes towards information sharing negatively affects the WMS enabled replenishment operations of distribution centers (Table 5). According to Inder, at least one of the departments in his firm does not share requested information because its members do not see any value in doing so (Table 5). Consequently, our interpretation of the data led us to conclude that attitudes toward information sharing are a potential cause of unmet expectations that can, in turn, undermine the implementation of SCT. Existing research has shown that in India supply chain members share arm’s length relationships (Altekar, 2004) and that process integration is often lacking within firms because of rigid functional divisions (Sahay, Cavale, & Mohan, 2003). Although we did not explicitly investigate this linkage, the data support the notion that the low level operational and IT expertise prevalent in India may support the lack of information sharing (Table 5). Additionally, a lack of operational expertise is likely to be a problem in other emerging markets in which we would expect to find similar attitudes. Unmet expectations of SCT due to firms’ inadequate information sharing capability arise from the supply chain members’ inability to share information. Sunny provides an example of how a supplier is not able to supply product information, which can undermine a firm’s WMS and TMS optimization routines (Table 5). This information-sharing issue can also arise when the processes for sharing information are not synchronized across the firm. For example, Dev (ReeferCo) explains how incorrect information can undermine the data in an ERP system (Table 5). Thus, we see information-sharing capability emerging as a third factor in creating unmet

20

expectations. We propose that similar conditions exist in emerging markets where the use of SCT is newer and less pervasive than in developed countries. Proposition 1: Changing institutional environments in emerging markets give rise to competing institutional logics manifested in inadequate IT infrastructure, unskilled labor, and a low level of information-sharing, which cause early adopter firms to have unmet expectations when implementing SCT. Coping Strategies In the face of these unmet expectations, firms attempt to more fully realize the anticipated benefits. In this effort, they use coping mechanisms as part of an adaptation strategy to loosely couple the SCT and the processes it is designed to enable. In the current research, the term “coping” concerns acts of adaptation that early adopter firms perform to deal with unmet expectations while implementing SCT. We define coping strategies as early adopter firms’ actions to counteract the conditions that cause unmet expectations when implementing SCT. We identified two specific types of strategies in use at the firms we studied: workarounds and handholding. We found that firms employ coping strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of conditions that have prevented them from realizing the full potential of implemented SCT. Workarounds. We define workarounds as non-standard ways in which firms deal with unmet expectations by temporarily filling in gaps or making changes to technology or processes internal to the firm. Firms employ workarounds as long as conditions prevent a specific SCT from being used in ways in which it was originally intended. We observed that the participating firms developed alternative processes with commonly available technology that approximates the features of new technology. We also observed that the firms employed three types of

21

workarounds for different causes of unmet SCT expectations (Table 6): (1) IT infrastructure, (2) information-sharing attitudes, and (3) information-sharing capabilities. When unmet expectations are a result of IT infrastructure, the data indicated that firms employed the following workarounds: bypassing, i.e., when employees do not use the system at all; and, retrospective data entry, i.e., when employees enter data after an event has taken place in a system designed to record data in real time (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006; Halbesleben, Wakefield & Wakefield, 2008). ------------------------------------Insert Table 6 Approximately Here-----------------------------------Xavier’s experience with unmet expectations due to unreliable Internet connectivity epitomizes the circumstances in which workarounds are most often used in India (Table 6). Consequently, in addition to the automatic updates to the WMS and ERP systems, a retrospective data-entry workaround is employed, as Xavier explains (Table 6). This workaround helps firms deal with failures due to inadequate IT infrastructure, which result in delays in the availability of information pertaining to stock and demand from regional warehouses. However, inaccuracy to some degree is typical of such workarounds, as Xavier points out: “There might be a difference of probably one day’s inventory … but not more than that.” Inadequate IT infrastructure also causes unmet expectations for GPS-enabled in-transit shipment visibility. GPS tracking of shipments and inventory within India is limited due to the existence of general packet radio service (GPRS) shadow areas. GPRS cell phone technology is needed to communicate the satellite position and other telemetry information back to a central server for analysis and conveyance to the user terminal. This information can be transmitted by satellite as well, but at a much higher cost. As a result, firms bypass GPS tracking and instead use existing technology to approximate its features. Zubin provides one such example (Table 6)

22

where the trucking firm bypasses the use of GPS and instead maintains what Zubin refers to as “an entire manual/automated system,” whereby a call center maintains estimated arrival times for the customers to access online, by e-mail, or by phone. This low-tech workaround enables the prediction of customers’ shipment arrival time with a higher level of certainty, thereby improving customer satisfaction. When unmet expectations were a result of limited information sharing capability and unsupportive attitudes, the data indicated that firms employed a type of workaround referred to as shadow systems, i.e., when employees use non-SCT tools created by their firms, then periodically reconcile those tools with the SCT (Berente & Yoo, 2012; Bhakoo & Choi, 2013) (Table 6). Sunil describes how the government’s system is incapable of interfacing with SAP. Therefore, a shadow system was required where data operators extract data from SAP and upload it to the government website in order to generate transportation documents, which must then be updated into SAP. Similarly, Tarun describes a shadow system whereby his firm created its own program in order to comply with the Indian Railways’ rigid booking and loading requirements. Proposition 2a: Faced with unmet expectations from implementing SCT due to inadequate IT infrastructure, firms that are early adopters of these technologies use workarounds such as retrospective data entry and bypassing, which though slower and less accurate than SCT, do provide some benefits.

Proposition 2b: Faced with unmet expectations from implementing SCT due to unsupportive attitudes toward information sharing and limited information-sharing capabilities on the part of supply chain members, early adopter firms use shadow systems.

23

Handholding. Handholding occurs specifically in inter-firm supply chain relationships in which the early adopter firm provides temporary guidance and material assistance to another member of its supply chain in order to deal with unmet expectations when implementing SCT. We observed firms that were implementing SCT for activities such as warehousing, transportation, and inventory management who engaged in handholding members of their supply chain. Table 7 provides antecedent unmet expectations that caused participating firms to engage in handholding and presents example quotes from the data. We observed firms handholding by providing guidance and training, which we term “expertise,” or by providing material assistance, e.g., software, which we term “material.” ------------------------------------Insert Table 7 Approximately Here-----------------------------------The anecdotes related by Sunny and Tarun exemplify the unmet expectations of early adopter firms implementing SCT. Due to the fragmented nature of India’s traditional supply chain, numerous small supply chain members lack the IT expertise expected in a modern supply chain. As a result, early adopter firms often face unmet expectations due to the limited IT expertise of members of their supply chain. Hence, in India, we observed firms such as Sunny’s providing expertise and material assistance, i.e., handholding multiple members of their supply chain in an effort to enable the automation of their own firms’ inbound processes (Table 7). By handholding members of their supply chains, early adopter firms can overcome some of their unmet expectations from SCT implementation. For example, handholding can be effective when the cause of unmet expectations is a supply chain member’s inability to provide barcoded packaging. This affects firms’ WMS-enabled processing of inbound shipments and performance of the related put-away and inventory-updating activities.

24

Attitudes toward information sharing can also result in unmet expectations that require firms to handhold as described by Babar and Waris (Table 7). In these cases, the transactional nature of traditional manual supply chain processes obviates the need for barcodes and information sharing (Sahay & Mohan, 2006; Shah & Suresh, 2009). Consequently, firms implementing SCT must adapt to these conditions and provide material support and expertise to the members of their supply chains. As Babar explains, this approach is expensive: “A lot of time gets involved, a lot of cost gets involved.” However, we saw ample evidence that firms view this as an effective strategy for building customer loyalty and growing market share (Stank, Goldsby, & Vickery, 1999; Stank et al., 2003). As Waris says, “He [the customer] is going to be more dependent on us. So this is definitely top on our minds.” We observed several instances where unmet expectations arose due to the inability of a firm’s internal system and its supply chain partner’s internal system to seamlessly share information. For example, Meer, a supply chain manager with BeautyCo, describes how his firm’s SAP software failed to integrate with its distributors’ systems (Table 7). To overcome this lack of integration, Meer’s firm provided material help by developing proprietary software for all its distributors. This coordination effort led to the availability of better information, lower costs, improved customer service, and enhanced marketing. Ram explained how companies manually communicate demand information through text messaging or even chalkboards to local farmers who lack the IT capability to directly access the demand information available in the buying company’s ERP. In this case, the outcome for the buying company is that it can obtain an amount that closely matches the expected demand for the produce, thereby minimizing both spoilage and low-stock situations. In the absence of such handholding enabled informationsharing with farmers, they would not synchronize their harvests with the needs of the buying

25

firm and would squander opportunities to reduce waste and thus improve the operational efficiency of the entire supply chain. Proposition 3a: Faced with unmet expectations from implementing SCT due to inadequate IT expertise and/or unsupportive attitudes toward SCT and limited information-sharing capability on the part of supply chain members, early adopters of these technologies handhold members of their supply chains by providing material and expertise assistance.

Proposition 3b: Offering expert guidance can be inexpensive, and firms that do this can realize an immediate payoff in terms of greater efficiency and effectiveness. Material assistance, though more costly than expert guidance, can be used as an effective strategy to increase customer loyalty and grow market share. DISCUSSION This research constitutes a first attempt to build a model for how early adopter firms adapt SCT that is being implemented in the context of the prevailing institutional pressures at work in emerging markets. We explain our category of adaptation with the property of unmet expectations arising from the competing institutional logics that shape the two incompatible, juxtaposed supply chains. The adaptation model we have developed based on our data includes several new concepts that provide a process whereby early adopter firms can negate unmet expectations when implementing SCT by using coping strategies to adapt their SCT. This grounded theory model offers several extensions to and a rebuttal of extant theory.

26

Theoretical Implications Institutional theory has previously been employed by researchers to focus on the role of isomorphic pressure in institutional environments prompting firms to implement technology (Bala & Venkatesh, 2007; Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; Liu et al., 2010). In the current research, we extend the use of institutional theory by developing a process that demonstrates how competing institutional logics of the state give rise to institutional forces that form two simultaneously occurring, incompatible supply chains. Research on how institutional environments shape supply chains is limited to investigating institutional isomorphic pressures (Grewal & Dharwadkar, 2002). Similarly, the literature on institutional logics is limited to investigating the effect of competing institutional logics at the state level on firm responses (Greenwood et al., 2010), and at the firm level on user responses to decoupling IS from associated processes (Berente & Yoo, 2012). We extend the application of institutional theory by combining the concept of competing institutional state logics with the resultant isomorphic pressure on supply chains to explain the juxtaposition of two incompatible supply chains in India. This finding could be important for other emerging markets or other contexts where similar competing institutional logics may exist – where incompatible juxtaposed supply chains give rise to unmet expectations due to factors arising in the institutional environment. Furthermore, it is the juxtaposition of these incompatible supply chains that gives rise to factors that leads to early adopter firms’ unmet expectations while implementing SCT. This process could potentially be employed by research examining the differences in IS implementation success across developing and developed countries. For example, a new concept identified in this research, unmet expectations arising from factors originating in competing state-level institutional logics, could be useful in explaining the focus on accumulating individual

27

technologies instead of integrated technologies, in developing countries or even in situations where these factors are found in developed countries (Zhu, Kraemer, & Xu, 2006). As we found in our research, the fragmented, manual nature of the traditional supply chain influenced by state-level social welfare logic was a significant barrier to integration. Also, Zhu and Kraemer (2005) acknowledge that government regulation influences IS use in retail supply chains of developing countries. Application of our process model could help identify specific factors arising from competing institutional logics at the state level that explain how those government regulations affect IS use. Another new concept identified in this research involves coping strategies such as workarounds and handholding as used by firms in our sample in India to cope with unmet expectations. Until now, researchers have regarded workarounds as impediments or as an unnecessary and inefficient result of coercive pressure and competing institutional logics (Berente & Yoo, 2012; Bhakoo & Choi, 2013; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). The inductive analysis for this paper, however, shows instead that workarounds can function as an effective coping strategy. Whereas Tyre and Orlikowski (1994) identified workarounds that arise due to operational problems internal to the firm, our analysis revealed that firms employ workarounds due to factors in the exogenous institutional environment. Additionally, extant research characterizes workarounds as either a constraining and disturbance-handling response (Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994), a result of coercive pressure to achieve legitimacy in the institutional environment (Bhakoo & Choi, 2013), or a result of competing institutional logics (Berente & Yoo, 2012). Therefore, firms must see workarounds as inefficient and as preventing the full development and exploitation of the technology’s capabilities, even after the original problems have been fixed. However, our data indicate that in most cases early adopter firms in India can

28

achieve benefit-maximizing strategies with workarounds. In doing so, firms seek control over their operations with the resources at their disposal that best approximate the features of new SCT. This is likely to improve information processing related to operational activities such as shipment tracking, inventory management, and demand planning. The use of workaround are likely to be useful in other emerging markets or similar contexts where institutional environments engender the juxtaposition of competing incompatible tasks, activities, processes and structures. Tyre and Orlikowski (1994) also observed that workarounds are often modifications to the technology itself. On this point, we observed firms developing workarounds in processes related to the SCT, and we also observed firms developing alternate processes using shadow systems or entirely new processes that bypassed the SCT. In most cases the outcomes of these workarounds are generally beneficial to the firms, even though the information may not always be as up-to-date or gathered as quickly as it would be with a high-technology solution. We believe that this rebuttal of extant theory constitutes an important finding especially as multinationals entering India and other emerging markets need to be aware that workarounds are a part of doing business in such markets and must not be discouraged. Khanna (2014) refers to this as “contextual intelligence: the ability to understand the limits of our knowledge and to adapt that knowledge to an environment different from the one in which it was developed” (p. 60). Our findings on workarounds supports this bigger point and paves the way for future research on emerging markets, wherein we must shed our mental models developed primarily in Western industrialized markets and begin conceptualizing de novo, context specific models that are sensitive to the local institutional environments. Hence, more generally, the results of this

29

research point to the likelihood of juxtaposed incompatible structures and processes in emerging markets that would require the adaptation of Western models in order to be effective. When included in established theoretical frameworks, handholding—another new concept to emerge from this study—may help explain variations in the data between firms that handhold their supply chain members and those that do not. Thus, Indian and similar firms in emerging markets that handhold their supply chain members may be more successful in adapting SCT than firms that do not. Until now, institutional factors that have been thus far shown to affect SCT implementation, such as mimetic, coercive, and normative forces, have not considered this level of involvement of supply chain members (Liang et al., 2007). The relatively arms-length nature of coercion differs from handholding in a fundamental way: the coerced firm receives no direct aid from the coercing firm. Moreover, coercion implies a negative engagement between firms, whereas handholding connotes a more positive one. The incentive for a firm to handhold other members of its supply chain is provided by the IS literature. Firms implementing SCT realize greater performance benefits from those systems if they are integrated with the IS systems of key members of their supply chains (Jayaram, Vickery, & Dröge, 2000; Subramani, 2004; Sanders, 2008). Our findings extend this concept of inter-firm IS integration by identifying the practice of handholding in order to adapt

SCT being

implemented in applicable situations. When supply chain partners are faced with unmet expectations, for example, it is because of their partners’ lack of information-sharing capabilities. Implications for Practice Early adopters of SCT in emerging markets such as India are unlikely to realize the expected value from using SCT. This is because the very nature of emerging markets, as evident in India—i.e., rapidly growing economic and business activity coupled with a regulatory 30

environment and tax structures that are only slowly evolving in response—typically means that the IT infrastructure is inadequate. In India, we observed that changes in political and economic priorities caused the growth and emergence of the national economy, which resulted in the juxtaposition of the incompatible traditional and modern supply chain forms. This could also be the case for other emerging economies. Thus, firms in an emerging market that implement SCT along with the supply chain processes typical of best practices in the industrialized Western economies are likely to experience unmet expectations due to the lack of skilled IT and operational labor. The primary implication supports other recent research on emerging markets that “knowledge often doesn’t cross borders” and “global companies won’t succeed in unfamiliar markets unless they adapt” for which they need to jettison their assumptions (Khanna, 2014, p. 61). We offer several coping strategies whereby firms can adapt their SCT to the unmet expectations emerging due to institutional pressures. Unmet expectations due to inadequate IT infrastructure are most commonly met with workarounds, such as by implementing retrospective data entry or by completely bypassing the SCT with systems and processes that replicate the salient features of the technology. When faced with supply chain members incapable of or reluctant to share information, the participating firms adapted either by constructing shadow systems as a way to work around the unmet expectation or by handholding, i.e., by offering material assistance and expert guidance to firms in their supply chain. Though handholding by providing material assistance is expensive, firms viewed it in strategic terms as a way to build customer loyalty and to thereby grow market share.

31

Limitations One of the strengths of our inductive approach is the level of detail captured in the data, which leads to conceptually rich interpretations and complex theoretical relationships. However, this research is necessarily limited by our specific interpretations and other interpretations of the data (Charmaz, 2006). The use of multiple, iterative peer reviews to check the data interpretation, as well as the use of synopses sent to participants to verify the research findings, should reduce the likelihood of introducing bias arising from an individual researcher’s interpretation of the data (Glaser, 1978, 2001). These findings cannot be generalized beyond the participating firms in India. However, the data do suggest that other firms both in India and other emerging markets are likely to be both experiencing similar unmet expectations from newly adopted SCT and using similar coping strategies to address those unmet expectations. Finally, although SCTs cover a very narrow spectrum of the IS that firms can employ, a more disaggregate study of adapting individual systems such as ERP, WMS, and TMS systems may yield additional insights. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS A research opportunity arises from one of the inherent limitations of the inductive approach used in the current study. The framework we have developed and presented has a substantive focus and is intended to provide a basis for developing formal theory about implementation of SCT. Future inductive studies could focus on establishing whether these effects are consistent across emerging and developed markets. The unmet expectations and coping strategies we uncover in this paper are by no means comprehensive. Hence, in addition to validating these concepts, future studies should consider uncovering further properties and their characteristics of adaptation. In addition, although we did not explicitly investigate this linkage, our interpretation of the data suggested that the low level of operational and IT expertise may 32

hinder information sharing in India. This is an important topic of future research given the importance of information sharing to the success of SCT and supply chain management in general, and could well affect other emerging markets. We built our theory based on an inductive approach endorsed by the literature. However, in accordance with how all newly emerging theories should be treated, this theory should be tested using a range of other methods in other contexts before it is considered valid. Only at this point should the theoretical framework proposed herein be formalized and valid for the purpose of predicting firms’ SCT-adaptation behavior. It is not unusual for the theory developed in inductive studies to be used as a basis for testing hypotheses derived from that theory in other settings (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The concepts of the current study can be used to operationalize suitable measures to test these hypotheses. Consequently, the model developed in this paper can be parameterized to develop empirical models that would test the relationships postulated in the emergent theory and research propositions. For example, we could investigate the proposition that the changing institutional environment gives rise to competing institutional logics that lead to unmet expectations. Moreover, we could test the propositions that the coping strategies are effective in adapting SCT in the presence of the factors arising from institutional isomorphic pressures responsible for unmet expectations. Furthermore, the factors that lead to unmet expectations, e.g., the state of the IT infrastructure and the availability of trained labor in any given context, can be used to explain and predict the extent to which a firm will be successful in implementing SCT. Finally, the coping strategies that emerged in this study can be used to explain variations in regard to the level of success firms realize during SCT implementation.

33

REFERENCES Altekar, R. V. (2004). Managing supply chain in India manufacturing sector: A critical study with special reference to supplier partnership. South Asian Journal of Management, 11 (2), 48–65. Autry, C. W., Griffis, S. E., Goldsby, T. J., & Bobbitt, L. M. (2005). Warehouse management systems: Resource commitment, capabilities, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 26 (2), 165–183. Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29 (3), 493–524. Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Post implementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Information Systems Research, 23 (2), 376–396. Bhakoo, V., & Choi, T. (2013). The iron cage exposed: Institutional pressures and heterogeneity across the healthcare supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 31 (6), 432–449. Carter, C. R., & Dresner, M. (2001). Purchasing’s role in environmental management: Crossfunctional development of grounded theory. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 37 (3), 12– 27. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technology diffusion approach. Management Science, 36 (2), 123–139. Dehning, B., Richardson, V. J., & Zmud, R. W. (2007). The financial performance effects of ITbased supply chain management systems in manufacturing firms. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (4), 806–824. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–167. Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A. M., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: A dynamic-capabilities perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47 (1), 38–59. Ferneley, E. H., & Sobreperez, P. (2006). Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facts of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (4), 345–356. Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. W., & Gardial, S. F. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. The Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 102– 117. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.

34

Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and The Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4), 545–462. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter. Gligor, D. M., & Autry, C. W. (2012). The role of personal relationships in facilitating supply chain communications: A qualitative study. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (1), 24–43. Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Grewal, R., & Dharwadkar, R. (2002). The role of institutional environment in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 82–97. Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21 (2), 521–539. Grover, V., & Goslar, M. D. (1993). The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in U.S. organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (1), 141–163. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wakefield, D. S., & Wakefield, B. J. (2008). Work-arounds in health care settings: Literature review and research agenda. Health Care Management Review, 33 (1), 2–12. Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Edhec, J-L. A., & Borza, A. (2000). Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 449–467. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal. 43 (3), 249–67. Huang, X., Gattiker, T. F., & Schroeder, R. G. (2010). Do competitive priorities drive adoption of electronic commerce applications? Testing the contingency and institutional views. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46 (3), 57–69. Jayaram, J., Vickery, S. K., & Dröge, C. (2000). The effects of information system infrastructure and process improvements on supply-chain time performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30 (3/4), 314–330. Johnson, E. (2007). 3PL twilight zone. American Shipper, 49 (8), 22–25. Kapoor, V., & Ellinger, A. E. (2004). Transforming supply chain operations in response to economic reform: The case of a motorcycle manufacturer in India. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9 (1), 16–22.

35

Kaufmann, L., & Denk, N. (2011). How to demonstrate rigor when presenting grounded theory research in the supply chain management literature. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47 (4), 64–72. Kaufmann, L., Michel, A., & Carter, C. R. (2009). Debiasing strategies in supply management decision-making. Journal of Business Logistics, 30 (1), 85–106. Ketokivi, M. K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Strategic, structural contingency and institutional explanations in the adoption of innovative manufacturing practices. Journal of Operations Management, 22 (1), 63–89. Khanna, T. (2014). Contextual intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 92 (9), 58–68. Khanna, T., Kogan, J. & Palepu, K. (2006). Globalization and similarities in corporate governance: A cross-country analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88 (1), 69–90. Kilgore, M., Joseph, A., & Metersky, J. (2007). The logistical challenges of doing business in India. Supply Chain Management Review, October, 36–43. Krishnan, R. (2001). Technology in the Indian retail supply chain. Communications of the ACM, 44 (6), 83–87. Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In R. J. Boland & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227–251). New York, NY, John Wiley. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29 (3), 461–491. Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31 (1), 59–87. Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., Gu, J., & Chen, H. (2010). The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt Internet-enabled supply chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management, 28 (5), 372–384. Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management. Journal of Business Logistics, 29 (1), 133–155. Mello, J. E., & Flint, D. J. (2009). A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 30 (1), 107–125. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340–363. Mulky, A. G. (2013). Distribution challenges and workable solutions. IIMB Management Review, 20 (4), 179–195. Pache, A-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (4), 972–1001. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

36

Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, L. (2008). An institutional-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5), 920–936. Prasad, A., & Heales, J. (2010). On IT and business value in developing countries: A complementarities-based approach. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11 (4), 314–335. Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., & Seth, N. (2006). Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30 (2), 225–246. Russell, B. H. (2002). Research methods in anthropology. New York, NY, Altimira Press. Sachan, A., Sahay, B. S., & Sharma, D. (2005). Developing Indian grain supply chain cost model: A system dynamics approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54 (3), 187–205. Sahay, B. S., Cavale, V., & Mohan, R. (2003). The Indian supply chain architecture. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8 (2), 93–106. Sahay, B. S., Gupta, J. N. D., & Mohan, R. (2006). Managing supply chains for competitiveness: The Indian scenario. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11 (1), 15–24. Sahay, B. S., & Mohan, R. (2003). Supply chain management practices in Indian industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33 (7), 582–606. Sahay, B. S., & Mohan, R. (2006). 3PL practices: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 36 (9), 666–689. Sanders, N. R. (2008). Pattern of information technology use: The impact on buyer-supplier coordination and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (3), 349–367. Schoenherr, T. (2009). Logistics and supply chain management applications within a global context: An overview. Journal of Business Logistics, 30 (2), 1–25. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Singh, A., Narain, R., & Yadav, R. C. (2010). An exploratory study of the SCM practices and IT usage: An emerging market context. International Journal of Technology and Management, 9 (4), 446–467. Sodero, A. C., Rabinovich, E., & Sinha, R. K. (2013). Drivers of outcomes of open-standard interorganizational information systems assimilation in high-technology supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 31 (6), 330–344. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. (2008). Contingency research in operations management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (6), 697–713. Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Vickery, S. K. (1999). Effect of service supplier performance on satisfaction and loyalty of store managers in the fast food industry. Journal of Operations Management, 17 (4), 429–47. Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., Vickery, S. K., & Savitskie, K. (2003). Logistics service performance: Estimating its influence on market share. Journal of Business Logistics, 24 (1), 27–55. 37

St. John, C. H. S., Cannon, A. R., & Pouder, R. W. (2001). Change drivers in the new millennium: Implications for manufacturing strategy research. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (2), 143–160. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Subramani, M. (2004). How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships? MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 45–73. Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 633– 642. Shah, J., & Suresh, D. N. (2009). CSCMP global perspectives: India. In Jessica D’Amico (Ed.), Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, Lombard, IL. Steinfield, C., Markus, M. L., & Wigand, R. T. (2011). Through a glass clearly: Standards, architecture, and process transparency in global supply chains. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (2), 75–107. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaption in organizations. Organization Science, 5 (1), 98–118. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., & Sykes, T. A. (2010). Impacts of information and communication technology implementations on employees’ jobs in service organizations in India: A multimethod longitudinal field study. Production and Operations Management, 19 (5), 591–613. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1), 1–33. Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2005). Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research, 16 (1), 61–84. Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management Science, 52 (10), 1557–1576.

38

TABLE 1 List of Participating Companies, in the Order Sampled

Firm WheelCo

Description Automobile manufacturer

Size* Large

No. of Interviewees 7 (1)**

MetalCo

Iron and steel manufacturer

Large

7 (3)

GrocerCo

Grocery firm

Medium

5

ChemCo

Chemical manufacturer

Large

1

PharmaCo

Pharmaceutical manufacturer

Small

2

ParcelCo

LTL carrier

Medium

3

TankerCo

Bulk liquid carrier

Small

2

ElectricCo

Consumer electronics

Large

1

ReeferCo

Temperature-controlled 3PL

Small

4 (2)

SwiftCo

Express parcel carrier

Small

1

SweetCo

Confectioner

Small

1

FreightCo

Transportation firm

Medium

5

ConstructCo

Construction equipment

Medium

1

BeautyCo

Consumer product goods

Large

2

GreenCo

Fresh produce supplier

Small

2

CleanCo

Consumer product goods

Medium

2

* The size of the firm is indicated according to Indian standards and was determined by using a combination of earnings and the number of employees. ** Numbers in parentheses indicate additional interviewees who were sampled in 2014 based on revisions made during the review process.

39

TABLE 2 List of Participants Name Firm Job Years at firm Years in job Anil* WheelCo Purchasing (Head Purchasing SC) 33 Brij WheelCo Division Head 36 8 Chand WheelCo GM 30 3 Deep WheelCo Purchasing Manager >3 >3 Eddy* WheelCo Asst. GM Steel and Imports 32 8 Francis WheelCo Procurement 9 3 Giri* WheelCo Asst. GM Procurement 21 Hari MetalCo Strategic Sourcing 16 8 Inder MetalCo Outbound Transportation 28 9 Jay MetalCo Head Logistics 16 9 Kabir MetalCo Head Transportation 27 3 Luv MetalCo Finished Goods Logistics 26 4 Mohan MetalCo Sr. Manager Logistics 20 4 Nasser MetalCo Transportation Manager 15 6 Om GrocerCo VP Supply Chain 12 3 Prem GrocerCo VP DC Operations 20 3 Rajiv GrocerCo GM 4 4 Ram GrocerCo Sr. VP Cold Chain 3 3 Sunny GrocerCo Sr. VP Supply Chain 13 3 Taj ChemCo President Logistics 9 2 Uday PharmaCo Supply Chain Executive 10 2 Vir ParcelCo Managing Director 35 17 William ParcelCo Chairman 40 22 Xavier ParcelCo Director Logistics 5 5 Yash TankerCo Owner 24 24 Zubin TankerCo Board Director 10 10 Amit ElectricCo Director Forwarding & Distribution >5 >5 Babar* ReeferCo CEO 8 8 Charan ReeferCo Deputy GM Freezer Division 1 1 Dev ReeferCo Transport Manager 1 1 Eka ReeferCo GM 2 1 Feroz SwiftCo Managing Director 5 5 Gandhi SweetCo Business Planning Manager 10 4 Harsh FreightCo Executive Director 13 10 Indra FreightCo President and CEO Corporate 33 16 Jog FreightCo Head IT 9 2 Kush FreightCo CEO Supply Chain Solutions 9 4 Lekh ConstructCo Logistics Manager 2 2 Meer BeautyCo Regional Supply Chain Manager 2 2 Nitin BeautyCo Regional Customer Service Manager 3 3 Omar GreenCo Sr. Logistics Manager 4 2 Parag GreenCo Head Supply Chain