Digital Transformation, Collaborative Efficiency and Supply Chain Antifragility: A Dual Nonlinear Mediation Model with Curvature Moderation

Jiawei Liu

doi:10.6981/FEM.202609_7(9).0003

Authors

Jiawei Liu Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6981/FEM.202609_7(9).0003

Keywords:

Digital Transformation; Supply Chain Antifragility; Collaborative Efficiency; Innovation Ambidexterity; Nonlinear Mediation.

Abstract

Supply chain disruptions increasingly expose the inadequacy of resilience-only thinking, yet the mechanisms by which digital transformation (DT) is associated with genuine antifragility-a capacity to improve rather than merely recover-remain poorly understood. Drawing on the too-much-of-a-good-thing framework and organizational learning theory, this paper develops a dual nonlinear mediation model incorporating a direct effect path, two nonlinear mediation paths, and a moderation structure, and tests it on a sample of 350 Chinese manufacturing enterprises (predominantly small and medium-sized). The results show that DT is significantly and positively associated with supply chain antifragility (SCA). Intra-organizational collaborative efficiency exhibits an inverted U-shaped mediating path: beyond a turning point, further increases in internal collaboration are associated with lower SCA. Inter-organizational collaborative efficiency exhibits a U-shaped mediating path: SCA initially declines with rising external collaboration before turning upward, and most sampled firms (60.9%) sit below this trough. Innovation ambidexterity balance moderates both curvatures-it significantly flattens the inverted-U of the internal path (H6), while its flattening of the U-shaped external path remains exploratory (H7). H1–H3, H5, and H6 are supported; H4 receives conditional support-the curvature and rising arm are robust, but the declining arm rests on a thin upper tail (17.1% of firms) and is corroborated by two of three complementary tests; H7 is exploratory rather than confirmed (p = .050, achieved power ≈ .50). The study clarifies when collaboration builds antifragility, when it stops helping, and when it temporarily hurts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Zhao, X., Xu, Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). How does digital collaboration affect supply chain resilience: An analysis based on resource and relational integration. Industrial Economic Review, 14(5), 24 42. https://doi.org/10.14007/j.cnki.cjpl.2023.05.002 [Article in Chinese]

[2] Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too much of a good thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313 338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060

[3] Bag, S., Rahman, M. S., Srivastava, G., Giannakis, M., & Foropon, C. (2023). Data driven digital transformation and the implications for antifragility in the humanitarian supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 266, 109059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.109059

[4] Shi, Y., Zheng, X., Venkatesh, V. G., Al Humdan, E., & Paul, S. K. (2023). The impact of digitalization on supply chain resilience: An empirical study of the Chinese manufacturing industry. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(1), 1 11. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM 09 2021 0456

[5] Zhao, N., Hong, J., & Lau, K. H. (2023). Impact of supply chain digitalization on supply chain resilience and performance: A multi mediation model. International Journal of Production Economics, 259, 108817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108817

[6] Zouari, D., Ruel, S., & Viale, L. (2021). Does digitalising the supply chain contribute to its resilience? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(2), 149 180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM 01 2020 0038

[7] Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2021). Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0: A systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID 19 pandemic. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 158, 107452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107452

[8] Modgil, S., Singh, R. K., & Hannibal, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence for supply chain resilience: Learning from COVID 19. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 33(4), 1246 1268. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM 02 2021 0094

[9] Priyadarshini, J., Singh, R. K., Mishra, R., & Bag, S. (2022). Investigating the interaction of factors for implementing additive manufacturing to build an antifragile supply chain: TISM MICMAC approach. Operations Management Research, 15(1 2), 567 588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063 022 00259 7

[10] Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.

[11] Nikookar, E., Varsei, M., & Wieland, A. (2021). Gaining from disorder: Making the case for antifragility in purchasing and supply chain management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 27(3), 100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100699

[12] Ramezani, J., & Camarinha Matos, L. M. (2020). Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846

[13] Nikookar, E., Stevenson, M., & Varsei, M. (2024). Building an antifragile supply chain: A capability blueprint for resilience and post disruption growth. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 60(1), 13 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12313

[14] Adobor, H. (2025). How organizations can benefit from volatility: The promise of antifragility and some cautionary notes. Organizational Dynamics, 54(1), 101098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101098

[15] Ivanov, D. (2020). Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID 19 pandemic. Annals of Operations Research, 319(1), 1411 1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479 020 03640 6

[16] Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID 19 outbreak. International Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2904 2915. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727

[17] Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., & Sokolov, B. (2018). Ripple effect in the supply chain: An analysis and recent literature. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1 2), 414 430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1387680

[18] Wieland, A., & Durach, C. F. (2021). Two perspectives on supply chain resilience. Journal of Business Logistics, 42(3), 315 322. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12271

[19] Munoz, A., Billsberry, J., & Ambrosini, V. (2022). Resilience, robustness, and antifragility: Towards an appreciation of distinct organizational responses to adversity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 181 187. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12289

[20] Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 163 180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008

[21] Zhang, Q., & Cao, M. (2018). Exploring antecedents of supply chain collaboration: Effects of culture and interorganizational system appropriation. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 146 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.014

[22] Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

[23] Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319 338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535

[24] Leonard Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111 125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009

[25] March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71 87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

[26] Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934 950. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.7.934

[27] Dooley, K. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1999). Explaining complex organizational dynamics. Organization Science, 10(3), 358 372. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.358

[28] O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324 338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025

[29] Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781 796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426

[30] Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51 100. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029

[31] Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299 312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015

[32] Uhl Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298 318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

[33] Tao, F., Wang, X., Xu, Y., & Zhu, P. (2023). Digital transformation, industrial chain and supply chain resilience, and corporate productivity. China Industrial Economics, (5), 118 136. https://doi.org/10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2023.05.012 [Article in Chinese]

[34] Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149 164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567

[35] Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: A relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4), 300 320. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM 08 2012 0243

[36] Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011). The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 561 576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.09.001

[37] Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762 800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834

[38] Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889 901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

[39] He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481 494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

[40] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

[41] Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U and inverted U shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177 1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399

[42] Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(4), 627 660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290

[43] Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468 0084.2009.00569.x

[44] Simonsohn, U. (2018). Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 538 555. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755

[45] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021 9010.88.5.879

[46] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747 014 0403 8