1 Introduction

Operations and supply chain management research (OSCM) in the domain of disaster preparedness and response (DROSCM) is a strategic area of concern as a source of practical solutions in disaster response (Gupta et al. 2016; Duran et al. 2013; Day et al. 2012; Kovacs and Spens 2011; Ertem et al. 2010). However, despite rapid growth of research in this domain, majority of the research is not backed up by empirical observations (Gupta et al. 2016). Also, much of the available research in DROSCM has no meaningful, organising and systematic framework such as theory (Galindo and Batta 2013; Day et al. 2012; Jahre et al. 2009). Such lack of use of theoretical frameworks may be the result of practitioner-led empirical research being uncommon. It may also be due to lack of access to humanitarian organisations and lack of access to the humanitarian or disaster theatre. Such limitations are not unexpected given that the research domain can still be said to be maturing (Kovács and Spens 2007; Kovacs and Spens 2011; Oloruntoba et al. 2016).

A recent mapping of the domain of DROSCM from an operations management perspective by Gupta et al. (2016) showed that while the body of knowledge in the area has grown tremendously in the last decade, research in the area still faces challenges in filling important research gaps. For example, there is little consistency in the use and understanding of terms (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012; Oloruntoba 2013). Confusion still surrounds the meaning and definitions of foundational terminology, constructs, and concepts (Oloruntoba 2013). Terms such as “disaster operations”, “humanitarian operations” “humanitarian logistics” and “disaster relief” are often used loosely with limited effort at precisely defining what is meant and in what context (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012; Oloruntoba 2013).

At times, disaster and humanitarian practice has led academic research, and many of the earliest scholarly articles on humanitarian logistics and operations were written primarily by consultants and practitioners (e.g. Long and Wood 1995; Long 1997; PAHO 2001). It was not until the early 2000s that academic researchers began to use the terms “humanitarian logistics”, “humanitarian operations”, “humanitarian supply chains” and others, and explore what these terms mean and how they are implemented in practice (Oloruntoba 2002; Oloruntoba and Gray 2003). Even as academics began to use these terms, they realized that these terms did not fully or accurately describe the complex web, type and network of funding, materials, information, relationships and processes moving in many different directions, and connecting many non-profit, for-profit and military organisations to make relief rapidly available to people impacted by disasters or other humanitarian crises.

Initial academic focus in the 1990s and early 2000s seemed to be on clarifying the differences between commercial logistics and supply chain management and humanitarian logistics and DRC management. Others such as Oloruntoba (2002), Oloruntoba and Gray (2003, 2006, 2009), Beamon (2004), Altay and Green (2006), Wassenhove (2006), Kovács and Spens (2007), Holguín-Veras et al. (2012), and Santarelli et al. (2015) have discussed conceptual differences between DRCs and commercial supply chains. These differences may be summarized as: the unpredictability of demand in terms of time, location, type, and size; the sudden occurrence of large demand volumes with short lead times for a wide variety of supplies; the high stakes associated with the timeliness of deliveries; and the lack of resources in terms of supplies, people, technology, transportation capacity, and money. In addition, many authors traditionally begin their articles with a section highlighting conceptual differences between DRCs and commercial supply chains before delving into the substantive issue of their papers and this convention continues (e.g. Kunz and Reiner 2012; Bhattacharya et al. 2014; Abidi et al. 2014; D’Haene et al. 2015; Charles et al. 2016; Banomyong et al. 2017).

However, few papers have actually sought to empirically demonstrate specific conceptual similarities between DRCs and commercial supply chains using well accepted SCM theoretical framework as a lens of analysis. OSCM literature that discuss conceptual differences often focus on differences in: funding structures (Toyasaki and Wakolbinger 2011; Burkart et al. 2016); operations (Arora et al. 2010; Bish et al. 2014; Richardson et al. 2016); decision-making context (Oloruntoba 2010; Ergun et al. 2014); and functional and structural differences (Hamacher et al. 2013; Beamon 2004; Kovács and Spens 2007). In this paper, we argue that such focus on difference while useful needs to be complimented by theory-led empirical research on similarities for a deeper holistic understanding of the phenomenon of humanitarian operations. Theory-led empirical research is also valuable for stimulating the development of new and potentially exciting research paths, agendas, and theories.

The contribution of this paper is threefold: first, the paper demonstrates important characteristics of the Cyclone Larry relief chain process such as integration and integrative management that are similar to the prescriptions of the activities and processes that need to take place in the CRM process of the GSCF framework—a key aspect of supply chain integration (SCI) and integrative management. The concept of SCI is an important and core concept in SCM (Bhakoo et al. 2015; Turkulainen and Swink 2017; Vanpoucke et al. 2017). SCI is the core premise of SCM for reaping high performance supply chains (Kotzab and Otto 2004; Kotzab et al. 2015; Sweeney et al. 2015), and integration is quietly but increasingly attracting attention in DROSCM studies (see Heaslip et al. 2012; Heaslip and Barber 2014; Tatham and Rietjens 2016; Jahre et al. 2016; Makepeace et al. 2017). Hence, our adoption of the CRM process of the GSCF framework of SCI implementation as the lens of analysis in this paper.

Second, the paper draws attention to important implications of such conceptual, theoretical and empirical similarities in the context of the frontiers of current research discourse on DROSCM and studies of DRCs while providing possible future research directions. While the paper acknowledges important differences between DRCs and commercial supply chains, it presents an empirical analysis of the Cyclone Larry DRC process and demonstrates its conceptual similarity to the CRM process of the GSCF framework using empirical data. The seminal GSCF framework by Croxton et al. (2001) details the full range of SCM integrative processes that are imperative in commercially-oriented SCM. The process-oriented framework highlights what SCM operational processes are about, what processes to integrate and how to integrate cross-functional and cross-organisational processes in a commercial SCM context.

The third contribution of this paper is that it uses empirical data to demonstrate that there are some DRCs that are similar to commercial supply chains in their operational planning and management processes conceptually and empirically. A conceptual, theoretical and empirical understanding of similarities and differences is crucial to developing a balanced and rounded understanding of the body of work in the disaster OSCM domain. The paper opens up potentially new sources of disaster management strategies, and new research pathways to advance theory and practice in the domain.

The research is reflective and interpretive, and may not be generalizable to every disaster relief chain. However, it represents a beginning in expanding research mind-sets, paradigms, and perspectives. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: in Sect. 2, we discuss the specific aims of the paper. In Sect. 3, we discuss some commonly cited differences between commercial and relief-oriented supply chains. In Sect. 4, we provide a summary review and evaluation of the OSCM process frameworks in the commercial literature, and a rationale for the adoption of GSCF framework and its sub-set the CRM process model for our analysis. In Sect. 5, we discuss the method used for the study. In Sect. 6, we provide an overview of the case study from which data was collected and analysed. In Sect. 7, we discuss findings from the study, and in Sect. 8 we provide a discussion of the findings. Afterwards we discuss implications of the study and future research and summarise the paper in Sect. 9.

2 Research aims

The paper:

  1. 1.

    Highlights key features of the Cyclone Larry relief chain process and management which demonstrates similarities to the CRM process of the GSCF framework; and

  2. 2.

    Discusses the significance and implications of such similarity in the context of current research on DROSCM and DRCs.

3 Differences between commercial and disaster relief supply chains

The current DROSCM literature often highlights differences between DRCs and commercial supply chains. Some examples of differences that are often stated include:

  • Contributions for financing the disaster relief chain are entirely voluntary from donors and governments (Toyasaki and Wakolbinger 2011; Burkart et al. 2016; Stephenson 2017);

  • The funding environment from which relief chains are funded and their typical funding structure such as earmarking and donor fatigue do not necessarily encourage broad and open coordination or responsiveness (Stephenson 2005; Oloruntoba and Kovács 2015);

  • The operating environment of relief chains is ‘abnormal’ often with insufficient or damaged infrastructure as found in developing countries (Long and Wood 1995; Long 1997; Dube et al. 2016);

  • The concept and process of customer service and customer relationship management for beneficiaries is obscured because the end-users of relief supplies are not usually paying customers of the supplier, transport-carrier, or donor (Oloruntoba 2005; Oloruntoba and Gray 2009; Hirschinger et al. 2016; Nurmala et al. 2017; Baharmand et al. 2017);

  • The unpredictability of natural disasters and other crises makes demand planning difficult (Wohlgemuth et al. 2012; Abidi et al. 2014; Kovács and Spens 2007; Beamon 2004; Laan et al. 2016; Tofighi et al. 2016);

  • There is suffering and life or death high stakes involved (or deprivation cost function) (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012; Beamon 2004; Bezanson et al. 2016);

  • There is proliferation of stakeholders and convergence of other actors involved in relief convergence (McKnight and Linnenluecke 2016; Nagurney et al. 2016);

  • There are short lead times requirements between the occurrence of demand and fulfilment of the demand (Kovács and Spens 2007; Wohlgemuth et al. 2012; Haghi et al. 2017);

  • Inventory control is challenging due to variations in lead times, demand and demand locations (Beamon 2004; Toyasaki et al. 2017);

  • Information is unreliable or non-existent and strategic goals are to minimise loss of life and reduce suffering while awaiting relief (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012; Bjerge et al. 2016; Diedrichs et al. 2016; Hu et al. 2017); and

  • The direction of material flow is usually a one way movement to relief recipients (Beamon 2004; Battini et al. 2016).

While these differences are indeed factual, if we look critically beneath the surface in the Cyclone Larry case, some of the planning and management operational processes are quite similar to the described processes of commercial supply chains when we utilize the CRM process model of the GCSF framework as a lens of analysis (Croxton et al. 2001; Lambert 2004a, b, 2009; Naslund and Williamson 2010; Verdouw et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2014).

At the heart of the concept of SCM is supply chain integration (SCI). SCI many be achieved through several means for instance through process integration, and several authors have stressed the importance of implementing SCM as part of a process-oriented approach to management (e.g. Lambert et al. 1998; Lambert and Cooper 2000; Winter and Knemeyer 2013; Mellat-Parast and Spillan 2014; Prajogo et al. 2016). A process may be defined as a means for linking and integrating structured activities designed to produce an output for a particular customer or market (Davenport 1993). A process can also be a strategy for improving and coordinating processes (Ellram and Cooper 2014). Integration of activities which is at the core of SCM is also considered a process (e.g., Bowersox et al. 2000; Power 2005). Overall, SCM scholars emphasize linking and integrating processes across functions and firms as well as with customers and suppliers. Hence, processes are core to SCI and SCI is core to SCM and all focus on intra and inter-organisational connectivity (Mentzer et al. 2001). In Sect. 4 we provide an evaluation and assessment of well-known process-oriented SCM frameworks based on the seminal works of Lambert (2004a, b), Lambert et al. (2005) and Lambert (2009). We also provide a rationale for the adoption of the GSCF framework and the CRM process aspect of it for the analysis of the Cyclone Larry relief chain.

4 SCM process frameworks

There are six seminal commercial SCM process frameworks in the SCM literature that recognizes the need to implement business processes across corporate functions and across firms. Each framework has its distinctive characteristics and objectives. First is the supply-chain council framework (SCC) (Lambert et al. 2005) also known as the supply-chain operations references (SCOR) framework. The second process framework has no label but includes three business processes: customer relationship management (CRM); product development management (PDM) and SCM, and it was developed by Srivastava et al. (1999). The third was developed by Bowersox et al. (1999) and further re-developed by Melnyk et al. (2000). Both frameworks by Bowersox et al. (1999) and Melnyk et al. (2000) are based on three different situational contexts: the operational context; the planning and control context; and the behavioural context. The fourth framework also has no label but focuses on the cross-functional interaction within a firm, and on the relationships developed with other supply chain members similar to the concept of supply chain integration (SCI) (Alfalla-Luque et al. 2013; Mentzer 2001, 2004; Mentzer et al. 2001). The fifth framework which seems not as widely known is the industrial SAP R/3 and SAP APO process reference models (Klingebiel 2008; Verdouw et al. 2011). Sixth is the GSCF process framework which was published in the business logistics literature (Croxton et al. 2001; Cooper et al. 1997; Lambert 2004c; Lambert et al. 1998). We now undertake an assessment of the suitability of each framework for our research goals.

4.1 The supply-chain operations reference model (SCOR)

The first seminal process framework was developed by the Supply-Chain Council (SCC) (Lambert et al. 2005)—the supply-chain operations references (SCOR) framework. SCOR is commonly cited in contemporary literature (Liu et al. 2014). Originally, SCOR included four business processes: plan, source, make, and deliver (Supply Chain Council 2013). These four processes are to be implemented within the firm and eventually connected across firms in the supply chain. Return, a fifth process, was added in 2001 (Supply Chain Council 2013). The goals of the five SCOR processes are to: plan—to balance aggregate demand and supply, and develop a course of action which best meets sourcing, production, and delivery requirements; source—activities related to procuring goods and services to meet planned and actual demand; make—includes activities related to transforming products into a finished state to meet planned or actual demand; deliver—provides finished goods and services to meet planned or actual demand, typically including order management, transportation and distribution management; and return—returning or receiving returned products for any reason and extends into post-delivery customer support (Supply Chain Council 2013). This framework is very well utilised and represented in the literature and thus is de-selected in our study.

4.2 The framework by Srivastava et al. (1999)

The second seminal process model or framework includes three business processes: customer relationship management (CRM), product development management (PDM), and supply chain management (SCM) (Srivastava et al. 1999). CRM includes activities that traditionally are performed by the marketing and sales functions such as interacting with customers. PDM includes a sub-process that identifies and manages internal functional/departmental relationships (Srivastava et al. 1999), while SCM focuses on the product flow from procurement of raw materials and sub-components from suppliers, through manufacturing, order processing, and distribution and unto customer service management. Srivastava et al. (1999) focused exclusively on the important role of the marketing function (i.e. the boundary–spanning roles) in the three processes and did not address the role of other corporate functions; therefore this framework was de-selected for the study.

4.3 The situational context framework by Bowersox et al. (1999)

The third seminal process framework is based on three different situational contexts (Bowersox et al. 1999): the operational context; the planning and controlcontext; and the behavioural context. This framework was further developed by Melnyk et al. (2000) to include eight business processes: plan, acquire (procure), make, deliver, product design/redesign, capacity management, process design/redesign, and measurement. Because a detailed description of the eight processes is not provided in this framework, it is not useful for our study. It is also not implementable in commercial or humanitarian relief practice. Therefore, it was de-selected.

4.4 The cross-functional interaction framework

The fourth seminal framework focuses on the cross-functional interaction within a firm and on the relationships developed with other supply chain members (Mentzer 2001, 2004; Mentzer et al. 2001). Like the other frameworks, business processes are briefly discussed in the literature supporting the framework. However, the detailed processes that need to be implemented are not defined. For this reason of lack of detail, it is not useful for our study, neither is it implementable in practice thus we de-selected it.

4.5 SAP R/3 and SAP APO reference model

The fifth framework is the industrial-oriented SAP R/3 and SAP APO reference model developed by SAP AG (www.sap.com). It describes the two systems capabilities from a business scope. It illustrates the systems functions through graphical methods (Kallrath and Maindl 2006). These systems functions include the components hierarchy, object models, the process models, data models, group models and industry models (Kallrath and Maindl 2006). The component hierarchy groups the model functions according to specific operational criteria and describes the systems through a functional lens hence the framework is not truly a process-oriented SCM framework (Kallrath and Maindl 2006). The process models illustrate, through graphical representation, the functions and integration of the business processes offered by the SAP R/3 and SAP APO systems. The framework originates from the Information Technology (IT) literature and is relatively uncommon in SCM literature. It is also not a true process-focused framework hence it is de-selected.

4.6 The global supply chain forum (Croxton et al. 2001)

The sixth and final framework is the GSCF framework which consists of the supply chain network structure, the supply chain processes and the management components that support the supply chain processes (Croxton et al. 2001). The management components include planning and control, work structure, organization structure, product flow facility structure, information flow, management methods, power and leadership structure, risk and reward structure, and culture and attitude (Croxton et al. 2001; Cooper et al. 1997). The supply chain network structure consists of the member firms with whom key processes will be linked or integrated—the key supply chain members.

The supply chain processes in this framework include the eight detailed component commercial processes, namely: the CRM process (Cooper et al. 1997; Croxton et al. 2001); the customer service management process (Bolumole et al. 2003); the demand management process (DMP) (Christopher 1998; Cooper et al. 1997; Croxton et al. 2001); the order fulfilment process (Croxton 2003); the manufacturing flow management process (Goldsby and Garcia-Dastugue 2003); the supplier relationship management process (SRM) (Guinipero and Brand 1996; Beamon and Ware 1998; Bowersox 1997); the product development and commercialization process (Rogers et al. 2004); and the returns management process (Rogers et al. 2002). The CRM, SRM and DMP form the critical boundary-spanning links in the supply chain.

The utility and limitations of each of the six SCM process frameworks have been briefly reviewed and assessed above, and a rationale provided for de-selecting some of the frameworks. Only the GSCF and SCOR frameworks include detailed business/operational processes that could be used by management to achieve inter-organisational connectedness, cross-functional integration and process alignment (Lambert et al. 1998). Despite the limitations of these frameworks, both the eight commercial supply chain management processes and SCOR are useful because firstly, they are both based on the implementation of business processes, and they connect customers and suppliers, as well as integrate boundary-spanning processes.

Secondly, all the six SCM process frameworks have in common the SRM, the DMP and the CRM processes, which are regularly identified as key process and boundary-spanning activities in commercial SCM, although, they may have different labels. Therefore, it is logical to propose that these three processes are the most crucial for the streamlining of cross-organizational processes in the quest for reducing costs, enhancing quality, speeding up operations and delivering customer service in the supply chain. In other words they are most crucial for the implementation of effective SCI and SCM. Therefore, the GSCF framework is adopted for this study for the reasons detailed in the assessments of each of the frameworks and the weaknesses uncovered. The GSCF framework is the most complete and most valuable of all the frameworks evaluated. Each of the 8 integrative processes stands alone detailed, comprehensive and complete. Other scholars such as Cooper et al. (1997), Lambert (2004a), and Lambert et al. (1998) have also written about various aspects of this detailed implementable SCM process framework. This study therefore adopts as a first step, one of the three key SCM process activities and one of the eight integrative SCM processes—the CRM process model as a lens to analyse the Cyclone Larry relief chain planning and management process.

4.6.1 The CRM process in the GSCF framework

The CRM process of the GSCF framework was developed to describe the standard set of supply chain processes, both operational and strategic, that could be used by managers, practitioners, as well as researchers (Cooper et al. 1997; Croxton et al. 2001). These standard set of supply chain processes makes the CRM process ideal for use in analysing DRCs. It meets the criteria of comprehensiveness and has a sufficient level of detail. It is elaborate and was identified by GSCF members, most of whom were practitioners with a ‘real world’ practical perspective on CRM processes, and the generic set of supply chain processes that must be implemented in SCM for integrating and linking processes. Hence, the model meets the criterion of ensuring that roles, responsibilities and definitions in the model are clear.

The CRM process involves: the pre-identification of key customer segments or markets; the provision of criteria for categorizing customers; the provision of customer teams with guidelines for customising the product or service offering; and the development and implementation of programs with key customers (Lambert et al. 1998; Cooper et al. 1997; Croxton et al. 2001) (Table 1). In the disaster relief environment, the various stakeholders and actors with different motives and interests may be considered analogous to customers, with varying requirements (Oloruntoba 2002; Oloruntoba and Gray 2003, 2006, 2009). Those affected by the cyclone are the focus of the relief effort so they may be considered important stakeholders with legitimate interests and needs. For example, there are different segments of those affected by a disaster such as families, children, ill people, older persons as well as businesses. With roots in the marketing concept as well as in the concept of integration (SCI), the CRM process is relevant because the services provided by the DRC and overall relief effort must be targeted and designed to meet the various needs of various ‘segments’ (Reinartz et al. 2004).

Table 1 Prescriptions in the CRM process (Croxton et al. 2001)
Full size table

In the Sect. 5, we discuss the research method and techniques utilised in the study.

5 Method

Section 5 describes the research methods as well as the data analysis procedures used in conducting this research. The case study method (Yin 2003; Barratt et al. 2011; Ketokivi and Choi 2014), was adopted because it is particularly amenable to fuzzy, uncharted areas of research such as the aims of this study. Case study method conferred the opportunity to study the planning, implementation and management processes of the Cyclone Larry relief chain in their embedded, real-life context. It provided insights into a specific social phenomenon through an in-depth, limited scope study, while retaining its holistic and meaningful features (Yin 2003). Other reasons for adopting the case study method is the opaque nature of government-controlled disaster management, where many processes of the relief effort were undertaken out of sight. Thus, there was limited specific knowledge about the processes and management of this military coordinated DRC (Edmondson and McManus 2007) as well as few prior hypotheses or previous empirical work for guidance in this area. Further, qualitative data such as collected in case studies is appropriate for studying phenomena that is not well understood (Barratt et al. 2011; Ketokivi and Choi 2014). Since, no two DROs, or DRCs are exactly the same, the study sought to identify some basic parameters about the disaster planning and management processes through the case study approach. The study and the data-gathering process was guided by the CRM process model, which was used as to analyse the Cyclone Larry relief chain process and management.

The case study utilised the data from content analyses of publicly available information from news reports in Australian Broadcasting Service (ABC) (18/03/06–12/06/16); situation reports from the Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) (18/03/06–12/06/16); and the Defence Department (20/03/06–12/12/16). The case study also utilized semi-structured interviews with emergency and non-profit managers as well as archival documents such as government reports and situation reports prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), the taskforces ‘Operation Larry Assist’ and ‘Operation Recovery’ as well as reports from the State Premier’s office who is designated by law as the overall disaster response leader.

News stories reported in the ABC were analysed to corroborate and validate findings from the official documents and to provide a daily record of organizational actions and events as they evolved. Content analyses were used to identify the disaster response organizations. A total of 27 semi-structured interviews each ranging from 2 to 3 h in length and totalling over 80 h of interviewing were conducted with managers of public and non-profit organizations involved in response to the cyclone identified by the content analyses.

Finally, documentary analysis was used in the study as well as other secondary data as a compliment and background to the interviews. We then mapped the data collected about planning and response processes over the timeline in which those activities were undertaken which we subsequently compared, contrasted and mapped to the four key prescriptions of the CRM process as summarized in Table 1 (Croxton et al. 2001)

6 The case of Cyclone Larry

Cyclone Larry developed from a low pressure system over the eastern Coral Sea, and became noticeable on Thursday 16 March 2006. It was then closely monitored by the BOM. It later developed into a tropical cyclone during the early hours of Saturday 18 March 2006 and proceeded on a western course towards the Queensland coast. Late in the morning of 18 March, Larry was classified as a severe Category 3 cyclone and continued to intensify to a marginal Category 5 cyclone as it approached the Queensland coast. The eye of the cyclone made landfall near Innisfail around daybreak on Monday 20 March, 2006. Wind gusts were estimated to have been up to 240 km/h (Category 4) in the area and over 290 Km/h in several other areas (BOM 2007). At landfall, it was a category 5 storm (BOM 2007). As a result of effective planning and preparedness processes and 72 h early warning, no lives were lost and no serious injuries were reported. Only 30 people suffered minor injuries despite the scale of the devastation and the populations in the area (BOM 2007). There was however, extensive and severe damage to infrastructure and crops in Babinda and Tully, and areas north to Cairns, south to Cardwell and on the Atherton tablelands, with the total estimated loss upwards of A$1 billion dollars. More than 140,000 people lost their electricity across Innisfail, the coastal areas east of Innisfail, the southern tablelands, Tully and Babinda. Over 25, 000 people were directly affected by the cyclone (i.e. with lost or damaged homes, farms and personal properties). Dozens of towns and villages that rely on business and income generated by the tropical fruit farms, sugar cane, avocados and banana farms were wiped out, with attendant consequences on the regional economy (ABC 2006).

6.1 Rationale for case selection

The features that make this DRC so special is endogenous to it (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Siggelkow 2007). Cyclone Larry of North Queensland of 2006 was selected because of our proximity to the disaster sites, the relief response and the relief chain, as well as relatively easy access to valuable research data and knowledgeable individuals and response organisations that served as key informants. Hence, Cyclone Larry is a convenient sample. Cyclone Larry and its response were unique as there was no loss of life. The DRC was ready to go and was on stand-by 72 h before the cyclone made landfall as a result of accurate early warning. Finally, an investigation of this DRC was more manageable because it was easier to follow-up key informants by telephone and to access government information in nearby Queensland libraries. Overall, while there were relatively few problems in the relief effort, it appeared to be a special case of effectiveness in the provision of relief and evidence of major aspects of CRM process prescriptions underlying it.

7 Findings

As stated in Sect. 5, we mapped the empirical data collected about planning and response processes over the timeline in which those planning and response activities were undertaken. We subsequently compared, contrasted and mapped them to the four key prescriptions of the CRM process as summarized in Table 1 (Croxton et al. 2001). The findings are discussed in sequence below.

7.1 Pre-identification of key customer segments

In the CRM process of Croxton et al. (2001)’s framework, the identification of key customer segments enables managers to identify and target the specific needs and requirements of each key segment of the market. In this regard, it enables the tailoring of a specific valuable offer that precisely meets the needs and requirements of each customer segment. In the early stages of Cyclone Larry preparedness planning, there is evidence of pre-planning to pre-identify the potential types of those who will be adversely impacted as soon as early warning of a cyclone was received (QDMP 2006; Kapucu 2008). Such potential victims were classified by their level of vulnerability (e.g. wounded, sick and type of sick, old, women, nursing mothers and children); geographical location (e.g. those living in low-lying flood prone areas); commonality, (e.g. households, families, communities, businesses, farms/plantations); immediate relief requirements (e.g. medical intervention, nutritional recuperation, temporary sheltering); and even by nationality. For example, the large numbers of foreign tourists (mainly Japanese) that were present in the area triggered the translation of cyclone warnings to Japanese. This helped to overcome the language barrier in disseminating early warnings of the cyclone and other disaster instructions. This pre-identification of affected groups saved time in the transportation and distribution of relief, and met the basic relief needs of, for example, daily insulin for diabetics and dialysis equipment for those that daily rely on it, until more permanent arrangements could be made. Another example of pre-identification of key groups was highlighted in the Maritime Cyclone Contingency Plan for the Port of Cairns (MCCPC 2006) and stated in the 2006 Cyclone Summit Queensland (p. 22) at Cairns:

Another, smaller group of people in the path of the Cyclone were those responsible for commercial, recreational and naval vessels in the ports and harbours from Cairns, just north of the eye of the Cyclone, to Cardwell in the south. Their story is largely untold. It concerns how they were able to protect themselves and their vessels by sheltering in mangrove creeks in Trinity Inlet and off other coastal rivers. Given the huge demands on coastal space in Australia, the continued existence of such storm protection is not an accident, but rather the result of good planning based on sound scientific inputs, and the educated attitudes and expectations of local people—all developed well in advance of the cyclone itself.

This plan lists each of the Inlet’s normal anchorages, mooring piles, marinas and wharfs and, when the cyclone struck, it directed boats in each area to a section of the mangrove lined creeks in Trinity Inlet while describing the yellow/blue/red alert levels. Once located, the instructions allowed the vessels to moor to the mangrove tree trunks and roots. When invoked, this contingency plan had the force of law. On arrival in the port, boats were given a copy of the one-page Cyclone Contingency Plan. During the cyclone, the Trinity Inlet mangrove creeks were highly effective in protecting hundreds of vessels that normally berth in more open parts of the Inlet. It is noteworthy in this instance that there is scope for more interplay between early warning and the identification of key victim segments as early warning aids scenario planning and response (MCCPC 2006; State Disaster Management Group 2008).

7.2 The provision of criteria for categorizing customers

In the CRM process of Croxton et al. (2001)’s framework, the provision of criteria for categorizing customers assists managers to develop specific criteria or indicators for grouping customers. Demographic criteria (e.g. age, income, and marital status) and geographic criteria (e.g. country, region) are commonly used, as well as psychographic and attitudinal criteria in the framework. Similarly, in the Cyclone Larry relief chain planning process, an accurate characterization of the status of victims enabled the relief chain to intelligently allocate finite material and human resources, as well as to focus resources where they were most needed and most effective. The criteria for categorising those affected by the cyclone for ease of targeting relief included level of vulnerability, geographical location, commonality, immediate relief requirements and socio-economic status. The socio-economic approach was however the commonest criteria used for categorizing those affected. This was based roughly on the ‘financial means test’ approach. The approach was designed to ensure that the system for provision of small stipends, loans, and other financial relief (e.g. insurance claims) was not abused or open to fraud. The approach was implemented at the so-called community ‘recovery’ centres also known as ‘One Stop Shops’. These were (several) booths that were opened to assist individuals, businesses and families through the immediate relief and recovery process. ‘One stop shops’ were staffed by relief and recovery workers, counsellors, insurance workers, social welfare workers, Red Cross workers and other service personnel that assisted in the completion of claims forms, and provided other information, as well as services such as case management and general community support. The booths were open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays.

In addition, a Combat Services Support Battalion of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) provided immediate health care, environmental advice, fresh food, purified water, tarpaulins, bath and shower facilities, and hundreds of beds for those affected. Although, the above approach is similar to what Croxton et al. (2001)’s framework prescribed as a core commercial supply chain management process, the approach sometimes proved inadequate as there were complaints about it. For example, the affected were asked to wait in line for hours to claim small sums of money—the same lines in which business and plantation owners were claiming tens of thousands of Dollars. Hence, the criteria for categorizing those affected should have been more user-friendly and less ‘humiliating’. The affected were also made to complete complex paperwork before decisions could be taken as to where and how to categorize them, as evidenced below:

...When they got there they were expected to fill in a nine-page application describing their circumstances, assets and income, and how the relief money would be spent.

—Cyclone summit Queensland (2006: p. 27).

7.3 Provision of customer teams with guidelines for customising the product/service offering

The evidence collected indicated that the Queensland State Disaster Management (QSDM) teams upon completion of aerial reconnaissance and damage and needs assessment began the restoration of specific public utilities and services in a certain order and sequence. The responders had clear guidelines on what their priorities were. The immediate restoration of the environment was priority number 1. For example, the neutralisation of live electricity cables, clean-up of dirt and the removal of foliage and felled trees. The ADF provided several chainsaw teams backed by heavy equipment that was used to clear debris. Such ‘priority services or tasks’ must be undertaken first before other tasks could be undertaken. This is similar to the work breakdown structure (WBS) often displayed in Gantt charts—a well-known technique in project management and operations management. These priority tasks ensured the safety of the disaster environment and ensured emergency vehicle access to disaster sites to undertake other subsequent tasks. Also further enabling the ability to access affected zones and assess requirements of those affected by the cyclone, and to subsequently meet those requirements. These early highest priority ‘services’ were not targeted directly at people affected, but to the quick restoration of the cyclone impacted environment to bring it rapidly to some form of normality through the restoration of critical infrastructure. Such prompt critical infrastructure restoration positively affected community perceptions of the level of progress of the relief effort, and by extension, the psyche of the affected communities improved.

7.4 Development and implementation of programs with key customers

In the data collected, there is evidence of the development and implementation of programs with key customers through grassroots community engagement with regard to some pre-disaster planning and preparedness processes. An example of programmes being jointly developed and implemented with the communities in the area is the programme for the farming victims of the cyclone (banana, and avocado growers and plantation owners). The development and implementation of the relief and recovery programs were undertaken in close consultation with other growers like the tropical fruits growers, papayas, citrus and macadamia nut growers, through a co-ordinated industry plan to restore economic activities and provide employment in the region as evidenced below:

Banana industry representatives are meeting the Prime Minister in north Queensland tomorrow to discuss the future of the $350 million Australian banana industry which has been virtually wiped out by tropical Cyclone Larry. Australian Banana Growers’ Council President Patrick Leahy said there is 100 percent crop loss in the Tully and Innisfail areas, about 95 percent loss on the Atherton Tableland and about 80 percent loss in the Kennedy area south of Cardwell. There is no crop insurance available for banana plantations, only for farm buildings therefore the industry is facing a huge financial and personal struggle to return production to its previous levels of 21 million cartons (about 250,000 tonnes or about 1.3 billion bananas.

—Media release of the Australian banana growers council 21 March 2007.

Short term assistance provided in consultation with the growers included: government funded access to labour (physically and financial); help with clean-up efforts including advice on necessary approaches; regulatory prohibition of imported bananas (from the Philippines); and longer-term financial assistance to replace crops and equipment (Hogan 2006). Some funds were made available for those growers that would exit the industry:

...there will be some growers who aren’t in a position to rebuild and would benefit from an exit package.

—Australian banana growers’ council media release of 23 March 2006.

The pre-disaster training and education of the affected populations on how to prepare for the cyclone and the necessity for evacuation demonstrated the joint implementation of programmes with the populations in the disaster area. The evacuation of low lying communities prone to flooding and storm surges/tides is evidenced by an excerpt from the police media release:

The Queensland Police Service has been tasked to assist in evacuations which will commence from 9.00pm, March 19, 2006. A mandatory evacuation has been authorised for Toolakea, Saunders Beach and the following areas of Toomulla: The Esplanade, Herald Street and Lady Elliot Court. This authority has been issued upon the request of the Townsville–Thuringowa local Disaster Management Group as a consequence of the imminent threat posed by Cyclone Larry. Evacuation from these areas is encouraged with the understanding that police will be compelling the evacuation of persons remaining in the specified areas. A police security presence will be available for as long as possible’

—Queensland Police Service (http://www.police.qld.gov.au/News+and+Alerts/Media+Releases/2006/03/tclarry19.htm media release of 19 March 2006. Accessed 10/10/16).

Table 2 CRM process: process elements explored and summary of findings in Cyclone Larry
Full size table

8 Discussion

8.1 The identification of key customer segments or markets for targeted service

Data from the Cyclone Larry disaster management processes suggests a level of pre-identification or segmentation of key target beneficiary groups with unique and similar needs for targeted and tailored service. For example, there seems to have been considerable pre-identification and segmentation regarding specific areas of affected towns, vulnerable areas of affected towns, areas with critical infrastructure, and areas with vulnerable groups of people. There seems to have been implicit pre-ranking and pre-identification of those who need disaster relief, and what their needs are (Table 2).

There also seems to be pre-identification and segmentation regarding specific areas of affected towns such as those that are vulnerable to cyclones, king tides and flood surges Also, areas with critical infrastructure (e.g. bridges, power plants, fuel depots, hospitals) and areas with vulnerable people such as people who are immobilised in a normal residential situation or aged care homes. Another pre-identified segment is able bodied males and females. Other pre-identified groups such as the disabled (or ‘special needs’), the South Sea Islander, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as well as members of lower socioeconomic groups.

When viewed from a higher level of abstraction such as the macro-economic and regional perspective as opposed to the lower, narrower-individual or personal beneficiary perspective; (pre-) identification and segmentation of beneficiary groups appear even more strongly to have been undertaken in the Cyclone Larry disaster relief processes. The State and Commonwealth government made special pre-planned disaster relief provisions for affected economic segments of the region and communities that were impacted for example, the first stage was to ensure that immediate aid and assistance packages are provided to businesses and industry and then other longer term disaster assistance such as job and support programmes such as ‘work for the dole’ type arrangements so that people could be employed under those arrangements with a fractional financial top-up from the companies or the farms that were receiving relief. These include banana, avocado and sugar cane growers, as well as vessel owners and operators in the tourism sector. The State Premier and Prime Minister visited these groups in the region and announced various immediate special grants, and longer term soft loans for the various groups.

From a regional perspective, there is evidence of some prior planning and pre-segmentation for tourism aircrafts and vessel owners operating in the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef. This important economic and tourism segment is listed in the plan ‘Maritime Cyclone Contingency Plan for the Port of Cairns. Owners of commercial, recreational and other vessels in the ports and harbours from Cairns, just north of the eye of the Cyclone, to Cardwell in the south were able to protect their vessels by sheltering them in mangrove creeks in Trinity Inlet, and off other coastal rivers when provided with early warning. This was the result of pre-segmentation and pre-planning for vessel owners.

Finally, pre-identification and segmentation seem to also have been based on regional infra-structure, such as the focus on the rapid repair of roads, restoration of radio broadcasting, electricity, water and sanitation. These were given first priority in the sequencing of the delivery of key components of disaster relief and disaster management. Hence, these aspects can be said to be similar to the identification of key customer segments or markets for targeted service in the CRM process model. Hence they adhere to the prescriptions of the CRM process model regarding processes to be linked in accordance to several authors who stress the importance of implementing SCM as part of an integrative process-oriented approach to management (e.g. Lambert et al. 1998; Lambert and Cooper 2000; Winter and Knemeyer 2013; Mellat-Parast and Spillan 2014; Prajogo et al. 2016).

8.2 The provision of criteria for categorizing customers

The explicit provision of criteria for categorizing ‘customers’ is very important and such criteria enables managers and responders to develop specific criteria or other indicators for grouping those impacted by crises. In disaster relief and response, an accurate characterization of the status of those impacted by disaster events is essential for the development of criteria for categorizing beneficiaries in order to enable the responders to intelligently prioritise the allocation of their finite material and human resources, and this is what occurred in Cyclone Larry. ‘One stop’ shops were used to categorise those impacted by disasters for instance according to criteria such as level of social and geographical vulnerability, financial wherewithal, income, and marital status.

This criteria is similar to the concept of triage in hospitals (Geale 2012). It helps determine need and urgency of need. Also, it helps an accurate characterization of the current and anticipated future status of those impacted by the disaster event. Indeed, responding agencies must also focus their limited resources where they will be most effective during disaster relief operations hence it is a means of rationale decision-making. The evidence suggests there were criteria for categorizing people impacted by Cyclone Larry. There was a policy in place for how public sector disaster management agencies (PSDMAs) work with people from different target groups. There were guidelines, statistics and local data on where everyone lives. Also, there was demographic data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), local government as well as the Department of Communities that was used for the purpose of determining criteria for categorizing beneficiaries.

Implicitly, the criteria used for categorizing those impacted in Cyclone Larry seems to have been (1) regional, socio-economic, and economic (2) regional environmental (3) individual, physical disability, hardship, low socio-economic or vulnerability. For example, in (1) significant attention seems to have been given to the agricultural, tourism, fisheries sectors during the initial relief phase of the response. These employment creating sectors were wiped out during the cyclone. Hospitals, schools, farms, fishing equipment, water supply systems and basic sanitary infrastructure were all destroyed or damaged. Thus, a range of relief grants were promptly made available as an initial relief and support measure for all businesses and all eligible applicants. In addition, hundreds of emergency electricity generators were distributed free of charge to the dairy and aquaculture industries to maintain animal welfare. Portable cow milking machines were air-freighted to scores of north Queensland dairy farms including trucks and trailers for six weeks in order to kick-start the milking of cows and economic output. Without the provision of criteria for categorizing customers, all the disaster management processes and measures would have simply been short term, unsystematic and ad-hoc in focus. In this regard, this is similar to the CRM process model.

8.3 Provision of customer teams with guidelines for customising the product/service offering

In the commercial context, customer teams are provided with guidelines for customising the product or service offering to fit the exact needs of the customer. The focus here is on the product or service offering being tailored to the needs of the customer, and having guidelines on the degree of differentiation, or variation in the relief product/service portfolio available/delivered. This element is not focused on the customer but the product/service offering.

In disaster relief and recovery supply chains, responding teams may identify each type of product and service required to meet the range of needs and requirements of each group or segment of beneficiaries within the affected community as a whole. Each of the products or services in the ‘relief portfolio’ together makes up the range of relief available for provision. Examples of relief in the relief portfolio may include emotional support, counselling services and advice on how to deal with particular situations (psychosocial support). There was also the cash benefit or relief giving the individual the ability to buy food and look after their self. There was also a range of informational support which is not counselling and which is not about looking after mental well-being but about providing information on a range of urgent issues for those impacted by crises such as how to submit an insurance claim. Information services also included advice or information on government schemes to help beneficiaries clear their farms of debris, or information on post-cyclone employment, or about an available workforce to help clean up businesses, as well as information about core relief goods such as water, food, clothes, and if a business organisation, information on equipment, spare parts, fuel and so forth.

Lastly, at the macro regional and infrastructure level the first responders such as the Department of Public Works, Ergon Energy, Queensland State Disaster Management teams and the Australia Defence Force (ADF) prioritised the quick restoration and delivery of specific macro services for regional communities over the delivery of relief to individuals impacted by the cyclone. Such infrastructure restoration was undertaken before other tasks were undertaken. For example, the cleaning up process ensured public safety and free movement of road vehicles without obstruction by foliage and felled trees. Also, quick neutralisation of live electricity cables lying on roads ensured public safety, and quick clearing of roads was critical to securing access to disaster sites by secondary relief teams. Access meant the ability to assess requirements of the victims and to subsequently deliver services and goods to meet beneficiary needs. As noted, these early ‘services’ were not directly targeted at individual beneficiaries but directed at the quick restoration of the regional disaster site, to bring it rapidly to a semblance of normality through the restoration of critical infrastructure such as electricity, water, communications and roads after which relief targeted at individuals can unfold. Hence, such sequencing and prioritisation fits with the philosophy of segmentation which is similar to the CRM process model

8.4 Development and implementation of programs with key customers

In the commercial context of SCM and in the CRM process, customer management teams need to work closely with their customers nurturing customer relationships, exchanging valuable information, holding customer consultations and securing an understanding of dynamic customer requirements and areas ripe for improvement. In the Cyclone Larry disaster management supply chain context there is evidence to suggest that this occurred before and during the relief and recovery supply chain of Cyclone Larry. The PSDMAs did acquire a basic understanding of the needs of the various demographics/groups that they worked with and identified improvement opportunities in the pre-disaster mitigation/preparedness phases of disaster response operations.

Availability of regular communication links with potential beneficiary target groups and demographics enables responding PSDMAs to better match their capacities and available resources to the dynamic requirements of beneficiaries and beneficiary groups. Such participatory approaches are conducive to beneficiary targeting and this impacts the responsiveness of the disaster management supply chain. Inclusion of civil society groups, NGOs and churches, pressure groups through participatory approaches is a prerequisite for disaster affected people to contribute their knowledge, skills and resources to processes that influence their lives.

Finally, data suggests that pressure and advocacy groups, associations or organisations with particular client bases have influenced the provision of criteria for categorizing ‘customers’ through the joint development and implementation of programs by PSDMAs with relief beneficiaries and various pressure groups who are most proactive about advocating for, and looking after their own client base which meets the prescriptions of the CRM process model. In summary, we have demonstrated how key features and characteristics of the Cyclone Larry relief and recovery chain are similar to the prescriptions of the CRM process model of the GSCF framework. We will now discuss the significance and implications of such empirical and conceptual similarity in the context of where the current research discourse on DROSCM and DRCs is.

9 Implications, summary and future research

The key contribution and implication of this paper is that a SCM core concept such as SCI based on the prescriptions of the CRM process integration model has been found in a DRC. Hence, this DRC can be said to match the prescriptions of the CRM aspect of the GSCF framework empirically, conceptually and theoretical. We can thus argue that ‘integration’ was present in the Cyclone Larry DRC. This is a major similarity and a novel conclusion. While there is no consensus definition of supply chain management (Ellram and Cooper 2014), a supply chain has been defined as a set of three or more entities (organizations or individuals) directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances, and/or information from a to a customer, (and return) (Mentzer et al. 2001, p. 4).

While SCM is often viewed either as a process, a discipline, a philosophy, a governance structure, or a function (Ellram and Cooper 2014), Oliver and Webber (1982) who first used the term SCM used it to describe connecting logistics with other functions. Similarly, Houlihan (1985, 1988) used the term SCM to describe the connections between logistics and internal functions and external organizations. Hence, the concept of SCM can be said to be focused on the pursuit of intra and inter-organisational connections and their efficient management (Chen and Paulraj 2004; Chen et al. 2009a, b). Hence the common use of the term ‘integrative management’, in other words, at the heart of the SCM concept lays the concept of ‘integration’ (SCI) which we have found in this DRC.

SCI has been broadly defined as the ‘comprehensive collaboration between supply chain network members in strategic, tactical and operational decision-making’ (Alfalla-Luque et al. 2013a, p. 801). It has been identified as a key practice to manage supply chains and achieve superior performance Wiengarten et al. (2016). It has been studied from multiple perspectives with several theoretical lenses hence there are many dimensions to SCI (Wiengarten et al. 2016). It has been theoretically conceived from six perspectives (1) as a strategic resource that results in sustained competitive advantage and superior performance (Chen et al. 2009a, b) (2) as a relational competence where achievement of competitive advantage is dependent on the generation of relational rents between multiple entities (Mesquita et al. 2008) (3) as a knowledge management tool helping managers deploy knowledge resources through the exchange of valuable operational and strategic information across the firm boundaries with supply chain partners (Paulraj et al. 2008; Liu et al. 2014; Turkulainen and Swink 2017) (4) as a relationship governance tool eliciting deep commitment and trust that may be used to achieve a higher degree of integration between partner organisations/entities which makes exchange relationships more effective and efficient and lessens the risk of opportunism (e.g. Nyaga et al. 2010) (5) as a strategy to reduce the burden of transaction costs (Lee and Lee 2007) and (6) as a tool for faster information processing because an increased flow of high quality higher quantity information can result in superior managerial decision-making and improve the performance of the firm and its supply chain (Wang et al. 2017).

In addition, Fabbe-Costes and Jahre (2008) identified and classified four interlinked layers of SCI found in SCM literature. These include (1) the integration of processes and activities which is synonymous with a process approach to SCM (Croxton et al. 2001) (2) the integration of intra and inter-organisational flows such as information or materials (3) the integration of technologies and systems (e.g. ICT), and (4) the integration of actors. Such layers of integration have been further identified as being fundamental to the implementation of SCM by firms (Stock and Boyer 2009; Sweeney et al. 2015). Hence, the Cyclone Larry DRC can be said to conform to this mode of process integration when viewed through the lens of the prescriptions of the CRM process model.

Several authors take a process view of integration and SCM meaning that the supply chain process is a means for linking (or integrating) structured activities designed to produce an output for a particular customer or market, and it can also be a means to improve/coordinate processes (Davenport 1993; Flynn et al. 2010; Hunt and Davis 2012; Barney 2012).

Other authors like Cooper et al. (1997) similarly identify new processes and emphasize linking them and integrating them across functions and firms. Hence, from a theoretical standpoint, a process perspective can provide insights into the relevance of linking activities to best gain competitive advantage via the supply chain. From an empirical standpoint, the primary contribution of a process perspective is that it adds to a greater understanding of which activities to link and how linking and coordinating activities can lead to improved results. In fact, the CRM process model and the GSCF framework (Croxton et al. 2001) on which this study is based were originally developed with process integration in mind, and the GSCF framework is still the most detailed and comprehensive means of integrating supply chain processes (Kotzab and Otto 2004; Trkman et al. 2007; Lambert 2009; Grubic et al. 2010). Thus, the Cyclone Larry DRC can be said to conform to this mode of process integration when viewed through the lens of the prescriptions of the CRM process model.

Additionally, when used to map the Cyclone Larry processes, the model provides empirical, managerial, and theoretical insights on which disaster relief and recovery chain activities can be said to be linked and integrated for improved performance. Using the CRM process of the GSCF framework as a lens helps to see and understand how disaster response organisations (DROs) and public sector disaster mandated agencies (PSDMAs) in Cyclone Larry disaster management connected to beneficiaries before and after a crisis event.

Similarly, we argue that given the empirical data collected and analysed including content analyses of news reports, EMQ and BOM situation reports, archival government reports and documents as well as over 80 h of face to face interviewing with individuals involved in the response to the cyclone, we are able to conclude that the CRM process model of a major SCM process integration framework, and by extension, the concept of process integration is empirically validated in the Cyclone Larry disaster relief and recovery chain context.

Furthermore, Lambert et al. (1998) argued that academic development lags practice in SCM and stated the goal should be for academia to get ahead of that curve and contribute valuable theory to practice. The paper tries to do that. It advocates the value that a broadened analysis of DRCs might provide in researching, understanding, designing, implementing and managing effective DRCs in future. It provides researchers with fertile theoretical groundwork for delving more deeply into managerial, empirical and theoretical issues within each process of commercial SCM and with their integration. The paper also encourages scholars to borrow and apply suitable and appropriate commercial SCM theoretical lenses in studies of the DRCs. While it is important to keep in mind that each DRC is inherently different, and DRCs are not commercial supply chains, nonetheless academic research needs to provide a deeper and more balanced understanding of DRC phenomena and their implications for SCM theory.

Thus, this paper initiates discourse on a complimentary paradigm in the body of theory pertaining to OSCM in disaster response operations as well as commercial SCM. The paper could be a starting point in further theoretical and empirical development of research in the area; and future research can investigate the demand management processes (DMP), the supplier relationship management process (SRM) as well as the SCOR model for further theory development. This paper offers a start in this new direction and a complimentary perspective to conventional thought. In summary, the paper has highlighted key features of the Cyclone Larry DRC process that demonstrates conceptual, theoretical and empirical similarities to the CRM process model of the GSCF SCM process framework, thus empirically validating the model. The paper also discussed the significance and implications of such empirical similarity in the context of current research on the nature of DRCs, SCM theory and our understanding of both.