1. Dialogue
Supply Chain Theorizing in a Fast-Changing World: Response to
Scott Saunders
Christian Busse
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
Academic–practitioner interactions consistently raise issues
regarding research relevance. Scott Saunders expressed this
concern via Dialogue, arguing that academics reside in silos. He
lamented that academics fail to get to the core of the supply
chain (SC)-related problems in a fast-changing world. In Saun-
ders’ view, our core “product”—theory—is too remote from
business needs. In his 2014 ERS keynote, Stan Fawcett asked
the SC community to consider the question, “What is our return
on investment (ROI) to society?” He challenged, “If we don’t
improve and better communicate our ROI, disruptive forces com-
bined with financial challenges may make us obsolete.” Fast-
paced change gives us an opportunity to improve our ROI. Here,
I extend the dialogue by considering implications of real-world
change for relevant SC-related theorizing.
A THREAT TO OUR CORE COMPETENCE
High-quality theory must reside at the heart of SC research, as
Stan Fawcett and Matt Waller have emphasized since their inau-
gural editorial. However, research has shown that change can
threaten the timelessness of extant theories, requiring adaptive
extension or revision. Even grand theories must evolve. For
example, information processing theory emerged in the early
1970s (i.e., in times of diversification) to tackle uncertainty and
coordination within the firm. As focus shifted to core competen-
cies in the early 1980s, IPT was extended to the dyadic level.
Today, as firms compete in network structures, IPT needs to
extend to a new unit of analysis—the network.
To assess change implications, we must analyze processes and
objects of change. Specifically punctuated equilibrium notes that
organizational structures and processes are relatively stable for
extended periods, featuring only gradual adaptations to environ-
mental necessities. However, there are brief periods of revolu-
tionary upheaval that fundamentally alter the “deep structure” at
the firm’s core. Importantly, the aggregation of gradual changes
is not equivalent to radical change. Similarly, we must distin-
guish between changes of facts and changes of effects. Facts
refer to descriptive features of the real world (i.e., values of the
observed variables). Effects, by contrast, identify causal relations
among variables. Considering processes and objects of change,
we can identify four types of contexts and forms of change. In
Figure 1, I use sustainability-related examples to exemplify these
four types, which I now briefly discuss.
• Revolutions are sudden, ground-breaking changes of causal
effects. As theories revolve around causal relationships, revo-
lutions pose immediate threats to the validity of prior research,
but also depict interesting research topics on their own
account.
• Discoveries refer to revolutionary changes of real-world facts,
which do not directly influence causal effects. They can, how-
ever, influence research models in that they determine suitably
realistic framework conditions.
• Megatrends comprise gradual changes of important real-world
facts. Because they unfold gradually, they are least threatening
to the validity of our research, rather allowing us to calibrate
our research agendas with them in the long run.
• Transformations identify gradual changes of causal effects.
These types of change are easy to miss, thereby underscoring
the importance of replication studies.
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE RELEVANCE
What are the prescriptive implications of considering change
processes and objects? I present five possibilities below—each of
which is naturally open to dialogue.
1. Consideration of boundary conditions in our theorizing: The
existence of real-world change cautions us not to “mimic
physics” through the generation of supposedly timeless the-
ory. Therefore, we must bear in mind that in our application-
oriented discipline, theories possess (temporal) boundary
conditions, which we should pin down more often and
exactly.
2. Change-anticipating dedication of resources into research
efforts: The brief discussion of change has emphasized that
both timeliness and timelessness of research topics can vary.
We need to channel resources to leverage research efforts.
We do not like to face the fact, but opportunity costs of
research matter in modern universities. For example, I recall
Hans-J€urgen Ewers, the late president of the Technical Uni-
versity of Berlin, stating: “We cannot afford to study the right
hind leg of the flea.” At the same time, there is a need to
study important causal relations more comprehensively, con-
sidering all their nuances and complexities, as expressed by
Corresponding author:
Christian Busse, Department of Management, Technology, and
Economics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Weinberg-
strasse 56/58, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; E-mail: cbusse@ethz.ch
Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(4): 359–360 doi: 10.1111/jbl.12072
© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

2. Fawcett and Waller (2011) in Moving the Needle. Such holis-
tic studies would fulfill practitioners’ need for relevant
research, given that managers have to evaluate decision alter-
natives holistically, with all their pros (benefits) and cons
(costs). Therefore, the faster the world changes, the less we
can afford to lose sight of big pictures by studying effects that
hardly matter today and less so tomorrow.
3. Fast publishing: Change also creates time lags between the
existing and the explained world. Therefore, we should
publish and integrate our thoughts more quickly. JBL’s
Dialogue section is clearly helpful here.
4. Prospective theorizing: “Change” is intimately linked to the
passing of time. As causal theories entail a temporal differ-
ence, we can evaluate today’s causes within a theory to pre-
dict its future effects. Some theories even facilitate long-term
predictions. For example, Christopher and Ryals used micro-
economic theory to predict effects of additive manufacturing
on SC design. Therefore, we should consider prospective the-
orizing to increase the relevance of our research. The punctu-
ated equilibrium paradigm suggests that prospective
theorizing may be useful when revolutionary upheaval is
absent.
5. Replication studies: Prior results may have been invalidated
over time, as causal effects may have changed. Replication
studies can be employed to reassess these effects. Therefore,
we should be more receptive to replication studies, in contrast
to the established practice.
CONCLUSION
Saunders criticized the academy for a lack of real-world rele-
vance. Without doubt, some of his criticism is valid. However, it
doesn’t have to be. As the world within which SC decision mak-
ers operate changes with increased velocity, we have many
opportunities to perform research that yields rich and meaningful
insights. Continued dialogue aimed at methodological implica-
tions, scholar-practitioner interaction, and necessary changes to
the deep structure of the academic system may also promote val-
ued adaptation. Indeed, a complementary perspective to the one
adopted here might consider how SC research can promote desir-
able change.
Facts
GradualRevolutionary
Effects
Object of change
Change
process
Discoveries Revolutions
Megatrends Transformations
− Change example: discovery of fracking as a
major source of cheap, carbon-based energy.
− Result: makes industrial firms re-shore energy-
intensive processes, but does not influence the
causal relationship between energy prices and
firm behavior
− General features:
− Easiest to notice (revolutionary change and
change of easily observable facts)
− Assumption-changing (in the example,
importance of energy-related constraints
decreases, while the importance of carbon-
related constraints increases)
− Change example: sudden appearance of
additive manufacturing technology.
− Result: changes the rules of the game in spare
parts logistics as it eliminates excess production
and transportation, thereby decreasing carbon
footprints
− General features:
− Most validity-threatening (unforeseeable
change due to suddenness, accompanied by
change of causal effect)
− Short-term agenda-setting (triggering
subsequent research)
− Change example: rising sensitivity of
stakeholders in holding focal firms accountable
for sustainability-related wrongdoings in their
upstream supply chains.
− Result: long-term change of firm legitimization
processes
− General features:
− Most likely to miss (gradual change process
that is not related to easily observable facts)
− Replication-demanding (change of causal
effects over time can only be detected
through re-examination)
− Change example: long-term oil price increase.
− Result: makes transportation firms pay more
attention to energy efficiency (thereby making
them more sustainable), but does not change the
price-behavior relationship as such
− General features:
− Least validity-threatening (slow and rather
foreseeable change process without change
of causal effects)
− Long-term agenda-calibrating (important real-
world trends must be targeted by research for
it to be relevant)
Figure 1: Contexts and forms of change.
360 C. Busse