Please reply to this didcussion at least 250 words ( not excced 300 words). Each reply must incorporate at least two scholarly citation(s) from at least 2 peer-reviewed journal articles in the current

Please reply to this didcussion at least 250 words ( not excced 300 words).

Each reply must incorporate at least two scholarly citation(s) from at least 2 peer-reviewedjournal articles in the current APA format. Each source can only be cited once and must be fromdifferent sources to the main thread and the other reply. Any sources cited in the replies mustalso have been published within the last five years.Please only cite primary research scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles, i.e., no textbooks,blogs, professional/trade magazines, or non-peer-reviewed articles such as SSRN and HarvardBusiness Review. The main title and references list do not contribute to the word count.

Discussion

This week’s module four discussion will review this week’s article on supply chain management (SCM) and factor market rivalry (FMR). SCM is an emerging discipling based on Austrian economics according to Ralston, et al., (2023). This presents familiarity to those of us who have studied business and asserts SCM finds market equilibrium. This discussion will examine the numerous factors of this research paper.

            In this week’s paper, the problem statement is, is there an opportunity to develop or identify theories that are supply chain specific (Ralston, et al., 2023). The authors go on stating they will examine which conditions must be met for a theory to be considered SCM specific. Supply chain orientation (SCO) also plays a factor according to the researchers. Upline, downline suppliers and manufacturers are all within the sample and are capable of speaking to the issues around FMR.

This research is through the post-positivism paradigm. There is a balance between qualitative and quantitative research throughout and never full recognition for one absolute truth. It differs from pragmatism as it does not start out by addressing a problem and viewing multiple solutions.

The researchers in this instance seem to lean heavily on the Austrian school of economics as the explanation for FMR behaviors instead of opening up other possibilities which may reflect a bias in their experience as evaluators. Naturally, all of us as researchers lean on our learned experiences for explanations and in this instance, it appears these researchers walled off potential alternatives due to their own. Although they do evaluate FMR against several other theories, their bias is clear.

Scarcity of resources in general creates FMR. Ralston, et al., (2023) provide an excellent example of surplus in resources during the Covid-19 pandemic where slaughterhouses were unable to process cattle, creating a glut of cattle on the market resulting in ranchers euthanizing stock. But even this example is an example of resource scarcity as processing plants themselves are in fact a resource in the supply chain. Any time a resource runs in short supply, FMR will come into play as the resource out prices the market or becomes in such short supply as to not meet manufacturers’ demand.

Madhavaram, et al., (2023) found downstream interfirm capabilities, which concern a firm's ability to jointly leverage and deploy both firm and customer resources to effect mutually beneficial outcomes, where extremely critical in limiting the impact of limited resources on the supply chain. This conclusion shows us that both sides of each link in the supply chain must work in close cooperation and harmony to optimize their outcomes and avoid FMR behaviors if possible.

Ngo, et al., (2024) also had similar findings, which indicate that when supplier management and supply chain integration methods can assist in the management of environmental hazards, this leads to a positive outcome for both businesses and the environment. Particularly for suppliers working with limited raw materials which are non-renewable, the environment tends to be a constant source of concern for their public image. This study once again reflects the vast benefits of close supply chain relationships.

Wieland (2021) on the other hand, views the supply chain much more like human relationships. The linkages must be engaged and constantly fostered. He does not take the same viewpoint as Rolston, et al. that these are simply markets which will eventually reach equilibrium. Suppliers and manufacturers must constantly be in contact, adjusting what needs to be addressed for the relationships to continue to be successful and beneficial.

Leviticus 26:26 says “When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.” (New International Version, 2011). This verse tells us that the supplier truly impacts our result. You may be capable of replacing how you materials or end goods, but there is always a chance fostering the continued relationship with the current high-quality supplier will yield the greatest satisfaction.

2 Chronicles 32:4 tells us “They gathered a large group of people who blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. “Why should the kings[a] of Assyria come and find plenty of water?” they said.” (New International Version, 2011). This verse is similar to FMR behaviors over limited raw resources but in this instance God is showing us an example of behaviors which destroy the natural and limited resources he has gifted to us. Supply chain stakeholders often do similar during limited periods of resource limitation by grabbing up raw materials which will eventually come free shortly.

Finally, 2 Chronicles 32:30 says “It was Hezekiah who blocked the upper outlet of the Gihon spring and channeled the water down to the west side of the City of David. He succeeded in everything he undertook.” (New International Version, 2011). This is an example of Hezekiah acting as the good supplier in the upstream supply chain.

Conclusion

            Regardless of the scholarly view on supply chain management, supply chains are a living changing creature. They need to be paid attention to, cared for in a fashion which is similar to stewardship and the interlocking relationships fostered. They can be viewed as market equilibrium, but competition for limited resources within them often is fierce. Cooperation and reasonable reactions between various stakeholders ultimately leads to the best outcomes for all involved regardless of approach.

References

Madhavaram, S., Manis, K. T., Rashidi‐Sabet, S., & Taylor, D. F. (2023). Capability bundling for effective supply chain management: An integrative framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Logistics, 44(2), 170-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12329Links to an external site.

New International Version Bible. (2011). The NIV Bible. https://www.thenivbible.com (Original work published 1978)

Ngo, V. M., Quang, H. T., Hoang, T. G., & Binh, A. D. T. (2024). Sustainability‐related supply chain risks and supply chain performances: The moderating effects of dynamic supply chain management practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(2), 839-857. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3512Links to an external site.

Ralston, P. M., Schwieterman, M., Bell, J. E., & Ellram, L. M. (2023). The building blocks of a supply chain management theory: Using factor market rivalry for supply chain theorizing. Journal of Business Logistics, 44(1), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12320Links to an external site.

Wieland, A. (2021). Dancing the supply chain: Toward transformative supply chain management. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12248Links to an external site.

Critical Analysis Strategic Deviation Template Week 4 Version.docx