“decline in productivity and farm output, caused by disruptions in distribution channels and in the provision of capital inputs and services. Effects likely differ with the type of product, and the structure and organization of supply chains.”
-
In addition, the literature recognises that the size of production and distribution units, the capital intensity of operations, the level of vertical coordination, the length of the chains, and the level of integration in international markets will be impacted differently resulting in supply chains exhibiting different levels of resilience to the effects of COVID-19 pandemic
[28][29][30][49,58,59]. These will affect supply chains differently with distinctions in traditional, transitional and modern supply chains. Van Hoyweghen et al.
[13] (p. 424) therefore argued that “as traditional and transitional supply chains are less integrated in international markets on the output side and oriented more toward production for domestic markets, they might be less affected by international trade disruptions.”
2.2. Horticulture Exports Supply Chain Monitoring and Evaluation
RWe
searchers then proceed to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation frameworks for horticultural supply chains to enable the study to evaluate the effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic measures in the Ghanaian horticultural supply chain. There is a need to monitor and evaluate the horticulture export supply chain for the impact of the pandemic and present strategic agility imperatives. The literature presents studies and frameworks for optimal replenishment strategy
[31][60] and disruption risk mitigation
[2]. However, Webber and Labaste
[20] posit the application of traditional monitoring approaches in most Sub-Saharan African horticultural export supply chains encounters difficulties. These include, but are not limited to systems, that are not adjusted to the measurement vocabulary of the industry; challenges in attributing industry changes to strategic interventions; inability to provide insights from monitoring into enhancing organisational practices to drive the industry; and inability to clearly delegated or insufficient resources allocated monitoring responsibilities. There is, therefore, the need for appropriate methods for monitoring performance in the Sub-Saharan African horticultural export supply chain to provide feedback for decision-making, especially in a global disruption such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Even as the markets for the exporters are driven by foreign demand with high continual business environment changes.
Currently, the literature acknowledges the PAID (Process indicators, Action indicators, Investment indicators, Delivered results) framework as the most comprehensive evaluation approach used for supply chains
[20]. This framework not only measures co-investment by stakeholders in addition to delivered results and can be used in supply chain projects when proper benchmarks are determined by chain actors. However, it has not been designed to measure impacts experienced by actors in the supply chain and various systems components of the supply chain. The framework focuses on performance chain-wide by (1) implementation of strategy and (2) increases in productivity
[20]. Therefore, leaving a gap of in need for a framework to measure the effects on the systems component of the supply chains.
2.3. A Theoretical Lens for Supply Chain Agility
SFrom Section 2, supply chain agility seen as strategic agility requires the competence to manage, sense changes and mobilize resources to adjust to change caused by strategic discontinuities, business environment and disruptions. Thus, supply chain agility could be considered a dynamic capability, since the literature defines dynamic capability as the ability to “integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments” (Teece,
[32][61] (p. 516)). Do et al.
[33][41] present research that has employed dynamic capability as a theoretical lens to enhance understanding of strategic supply chain agility
[32][34][35][36][37][45,48,53,61,62].
The framework to sense the required supply chain agility prerequisites and redesign variables as discussed in
Section 2.2 has been sparsely researched and has left a gap in the measurement of supply chain components. Since supply chain agility as strategic agility is a management decision and Mentzer et al.
[38][63] proposed a broader and generalised definition for supply chain management as the systematic, strategic coordination of business functions and organisation tactics across actors within the supply chain, ultimately for improving the long-term performance of the supply chain actors and the supply chain as a whole. In addition, from the system dynamics view and the “logistical concept”, a supply chain scenario consists of a managed system, managing system, information and organization
[39][64].
Therefore, to ensure the application of supply chain agility and to implement it, there are identified variables in the supply chain that could be redesigned to achieve the required agile configuration of the supply chain. These are the supply chain redesign variables. A supply chain redesign variable is defined as a management decision variable at the strategic, tactical or operational level that determines the setting of one of the descriptive elements of the managed, managing, information system or organization structure
[28][49]. Vorst
[40][46] (p. 64) classifies these redesign variables in a supply chain as shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Classification of Supply Chain Redesign Variables. Adapted from Vorst (2000) [40] (p. 64). Classification of Supply Chain Redesign Variables. Adapted from Vorst (2000) [46] (p. 64).
Managed System |
Managing System |
Information System |
Organization |
Table 1 and is presented in
Table 2.
Table 2.
Typology of Fresh Produce Horticultural Export Supply Chain Elements of the Components Requiring Agility.
Supply Chain Management Concept Component |
Elements of The Supply Chain Components Requiring Agility |
Network design Facility design Resource and product characteristics |
Hierarchical decision levels Type of decision making Position of the Customer order decoupling point (CODP) Level of coordination
- ○
-
Within organization
- ○
-
Within the supply chain
|
Managed System (Infrastructure) | Transactional IT systems | Analytical IT systems |
Division of tasks Division of authority and responsibilities. |
Additionally, Yawson and Aguiar
[41][42][65,66] developed elements of the components that will require supply chain agility in developing countries’ horticultural export supply chains based on the redesign variables in
Standardized information system for supply chain integration |
_(INS5) |
Organization |
|
(ORG) |
Definition of organizational logistical objectives |
_(ORG1) |
Definition of supply chain logistical objectives |
_(ORG2) |
Definition of organizational logistical performance indicators |
_(ORG3) |
Definition of supply chain logistical performance indicators |
_(ORG4) |
Training of staff (internal and external) |
_(ORG5) |
With the disruptive change due to the COVID-19 pandemic in fresh produce supply chains, therefore, dealing with uncertainty denotes whether or when a certain event occurs. However, dealing with uncertainty requires evaluating the implications if certain events were to occur. In the case of the fresh produce supply chain, strategic agility would be the supply chain actor organizations or chain-wide supply chain response. Generally, for fresh produce supply chains, horticultural producers adopt and develop various strategies in order to survive and develop
[43][51]. These strategies are based on three key aspects: (1) organisational innovation; (2) production innovation; and (3) product innovation
[44][67].
Therefore,
rwe
searchers adopt the framework by Yawson and Aguiar
[41][65] and Yawson and Aguiar
[42][66] to identify components and elements in a developing countries’ horticultural export supply chain that required agility due to the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is to provide insight into supply chain evaluation in the horticultural export development context to enable the building of the critical responsive strategy required to compete. In the framework, the external and internal environment are conceptualised to affect the four theoretical (logistical concept) components of the supply chain, the managed system (infrastructure), managing system (management), information system and organisation system. The framework is shown in
Figure 12. The relationships of the agility drivers to the various components of the supply chain are presented, ensuring the framework account for internal and external environmental factors (politics, economics, society and technology)
[45][68] and also four agility dimensions: cooperating to enhance competitiveness, enriching the customer, mastering change and uncertainty, and leveraging the impact of people and information
[46][69]. Additionally, the framework also accounts for companies as part of a network, showing the affected and the level of agility of the supply chain
[47][70]. From the framework in
Figure 12, the change factors relate to the following components of the supply chain elements:
Figure 12.
Conceptual Framework for Supply Chain Agility Analysis.
-
The managed system: The supply chain actors with specified roles in the supply chain and their required infrastructure
[48][71], which can be viewed from three levels: network design, facility design, and resource characteristics.
-
The managing system: This component plans, controls and coordinates the business processes in the supply chain to ensure the realization of the logistical objectives within the limitations of the supply chain configuration and strategic supply chain objectives
[49][72].
-
The information system: This component provides and coordinates the information for the managing system for decision-making and control of actions.
-
The organisation structure: This component comprises two main elements
[50][73]: the establishment of tasks and their coordination to realize set objectives.
-
Agility drivers: These are internal or external factors in the business environment influencing the required level of business agility. Zhang and Sharifi
[51][55] (p. 498) define “agility drivers as changes/pressures from the business environment that necessitate a company to search for new ways of running its business in order to maintain its competitiveness”.
-
Specification of redesign variables (capabilities): These are the essential capabilities variable needed by the company in order to respond positively to utilising the business environment changes.
-
Agility gaps: Agility gaps arise when the firm has difficulty in acquiring the level of agility to respond to business environment changes in a timely and cost-effective manner.
-
Agility enablers: Agility enablers are the required variables for a business to enhance its strategic agility. The model presents enablers of supply chain actors and supply chain strategic agility.
-
Supply chain performance: Supply chain performance is the level at which a supply chain fulfils end-user requirements based on performance indicators and the given total cost to the supply chain
[40][46].
-
Agility redesign variable: This is management decisions at the strategic level that determines one of the logistic concept components of the supply chain (managed, managing, information system and organisation structure).
(MDS) |
Cold chain infrastructure_ | (MDS 1) |
Post-harvest infrastructure_(MDS2) |
Packaging material (e.g., pallets, cartons)_(MDS3) |
Field infrastructure for production_(MDS4) |
Field infrastructure for labour_(MDS5) |
Internal logistics infrastructure (e.g., transport)_(MDS6) |
External logistics infrastructure (e.g., shipping, air)_(MDS7) |
Road infrastructure_(MDS8) |
Environment (e.g., taxes, regulation)_(MDS9) |
Production infrastructure_(MDS10) |
Input suppliers (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides)_(MDS11) |
Planting material production_(MDS12) |
Distribution network design_(MDS13) |
Product varieties_(MDS14) |
Land for production_(MDS15) |
Irrigation facilities_(MDS16) |
Managing System (Management) (MGS) |
Management structure_(MGS1) |
Management Systems_(MGS2) |
Decision Making_(MGS3) |
Level of coordination in the organization_(MGS4) |
Level of coordination in the supply chain_(MGS5) |
Information System (INS) |
Information exchange system_(INS1) |
Electronic information systems_(INS2) |
Electronic information management_(INS3) |
Databases on markets and competition |
The framework operates in two steps: Firstly, it identifies the elements of the components of the supply chain that requires agility by identifying elements of component that actors of the chain find difficult in meeting or changing to meet in the supply chain. This is done through a questionnaire sent to actors in the supply chain with questions on the elements of the components shown in
Table 2. Secondly, the questionnaire is then analysed for the Agility gap using an index interpreted and interventions prescribed.
The Agility Gap Index is adapted from the work of van Oosterhout et al.
[47][70]. They developed a business Agility Gap index for which they argue that if businesses find it difficult to cope with major changes which go beyond their normal flexibility, they are termed to have faced an agility gap. The interview instrument for the framework interrogates strategic agility with a two-stage question approach. The first step asks the participant “To what extent are changes in the current business environment affecting supply chain elements in your business?” (Then, a list of the elements of the components follows). The items are scored on a Likert-5point scale anchored on 1 (Very low) to 5 (Very high). For items representing processes that score 4 or 5 (high and very high extent of change, respectively) a follow-up question. Therefore, whole business entities, supply change actors and specific supply change processes could be termed to have an agility gap. The changes required are termed business change and the factors causing these are business environment change factors. In the second step, the degree of the impact due to the business environment change factor is measured with a follow-up question in the survey instrument for items representing processes that score 4 or 5 (high and very high extent of change, respectively) on a Likert-5point scale asking the participant to indicate the level of difficulty in having to cope with the change. The responses to the follow-up questions are also scored on a Likert-5point scale of difficulty anchored on 1 (Very low) to 5 (Very high). These are then computed as an Agility gap index score with a percentage. Therefore, Agility gap index scores can be computed for elements of the supply change components, an aggregate of the components in supply chains and whole supply chains
[41][42][65,66]. The results are interpreted according to a scale developed by Oosterhout et al.
[47][70]. The agility gap index calculated as a ratio in percentage is scaled to a number between 0% (no Agility gap at all) and 100% (largest Agility gap possible). These are classified as ‘most urgent’ gaps (ratios ≥ 60%), ‘high urgency’ gaps (ratios > 50% and < 60%), ‘lower level of urgency’ gaps (ratios > 40% and ≤ 50%), ‘Normal’ gaps (ratios < 40%) and ‘No Gap at All’ (ratios = 0) using a scale by van Oosterhout et al.
[47][70]. The higher the agility gap index ratio percentage, the more urgent the agility gap. According to Oosterhout et al.
[47][70] if businesses find it difficult to cope with major changes, which go beyond their normal level of flexibility, they are faced with an agility gap and need intervention. Therefore, the supply chain agility methodological framework has the potential as a potential panacea to identify components of the horticulture export supply chain for the development of a responsive strategy to resolve fresh produce export chain challenges in a turbulent (COVID-19) business environment.