Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 511

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile?

Gligor, David M., Esmark, Carol L., Holcomb, Mary C.·2015·Journal of Operations Management

Abstract

Traditionally, researchers have claimed agility as an attribute closely tied to the effectiveness of strategic supply chain management. Because of its association with customer effectiveness, some researchers have considered agility to be fundamentally different from lean, which has been linked to cost efficiency (Goldsby et al., 2006). Therefore, the relationship between agility and cost efficiency is not clear due to limited empirical scrutiny from researchers. Since elimination of waste is the cornerstone of lean, unraveling the relationship between agility and efficiency can also offer a better perspective on relationship between the fundamental paradigms of agility and lean. The manuscript makes a key contribution to the agility literature by examining the association between supply chain agility (FSCA), cost efficiency and customer effectiveness across various environmental situations. We use archival data to examine the moderating effects of environmental munificence, dynamism, and complexity. It has been argued that firms should embrace agile strategies when operating in highly uncertain environments, and embrace lean strategies when operating in more stable environments (Lee, 2002; Sebastiao and Golicic, 2008). We empirically question this premise to determine whether supply chain agility can also lead to superior performance for firms operating in stable environments. The study results also provide a better understanding of how FSCA contributes to firm financial performance. We evaluate the impact of FSCA on the firm's Return on Assets using archival data from the Compustat database. Thus, we provide evidence to managers that deploying resource to enhance FSCA can positively impact the firm's bottom line.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.008

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 88 references

Cited by

See all 511

Metadata

Authors
Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Holcomb, M. C.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-31
Volume
33-34
Issue
1
Pages
71-82
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
OpenAlex
W2007809031
Cited by
511
References
88
FWCI
37.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.008
The paper
Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Holcomb, M. C. (2015). Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile? Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.