How do TSCs develop?

The TSCs in study developed in phases, either in a centrally-controlled or in a locally- controlled way. The underlying explanation is the degree of uncertainty about how the task unfolded; i.e. its resulting chain of events and patterns at different points in time. Specifically, the degree of uncertainty about how the task will unfold influences the

138

nature of control over the TSC development. If there is low uncertainty in terms of how the task unfolds, the TSC is more likely to develop in a centrally-controlled manner, which means that controlling authorities can determine the activation, deactivation or modification of supply chain elements in order to meet the requirements of the task over time. If there is high uncertainty in terms of how the task unfolds, the TSC is more likely to develop in a locally-controlled manner, meaning that the supply chain elements will activate, deactivate, and modify themselves in a purposeful manner in order to meet the requirements of the task over time, without detailed involvement of a central entity.

In the Olympics, the TSC developed in a centrally-controlled manner; i.e. organisations and relationships were activated, deactivated or modified according to the requirements of specific Olympic phases. There were low levels of uncertainty regarding the event. OGOC staff knew fairly well about what was going to happen over time because previous organising committees transferred their knowledge through manuals and other means. Although each edition of the Games is in a different city/country with various sorts of contingencies, there is regularity in terms of which types of transport services are provided. Certainly, the OGOC and partners faced uncertainties, for instance regarding demand and operational details (e.g. number of buses/cars they would need to provide specific transport services). However, these uncertainties could be handled beforehand through contingency plans. Therefore, supply chain operations could be planned accordingly. Given the level of details on planning, the OGOC and the city council of Rio could control multiple organisations and activities; there were clear standards against which to control. Thus, this TSC had a centrally-controlled development.

When it comes to the Ebola Response, although there was the clear high-level task/goal of achieving zero Ebola cases, not even the most specialized people and

139

organisations knew exactly how they would achieve this. There were high levels of uncertainty regarding the outbreak – operating organisations could not know how far the disease would spread, at what speed, for which locations, etc. Therefore, it was not possible to plan supply chain operations in detail, which made control difficult. Besides the uncertainty regarding the resulting chains of events and pattern of the spread of the disease, there was another key source of uncertainty: organisations were added to or voluntarily joined the Response in different phases as the task unfolded. Further, some of the independent organisations operating had their own mandates and work procedures. Therefore, they were not under the UNMEER structure and could not be completely controlled. What is more, relationships were developed over time even informally to satisfy the requirements of specific phases of the Response. Central controlling in this case was not possible due in part to (1) the lack of clear mechanisms/standards against which to control and (2) emergence that limited control. Therefore, the way this TSC developed was locally-controlled – supply chain elements activated, deactivated, and modified themselves over time in order to provide the necessary aid to the affected countries.

The degree of uncertainty about how a task unfolds also seems to be a continuous variable. Keeping the previous example, we could place floods in between the extreme cases – medium degree of uncertainty about how a task unfolds. Although there is knowledge on how floods unfold (e.g. areas near the sea/rivers and lower neighbourhoods will be more likely to flood first), there is still uncertainty as to how fast it will happen and whether people will be able to leave their homes before the situation becomes serious. This means that central control over some aspects of the TSC development might be possible, but still there might be locally-controlling actors (e.g.

140

local communities’ volunteers). The findings discussed in this sub-section are summarized in the following propositions:

Proposition 3: The degree of uncertainty about how a task unfolds influences the nature of control over the TSC development.

Proposition 3a: Lower degrees of uncertainty about how the task unfolds more likely leads to central control over the TSC development.

Proposition 3b: Higher degrees of uncertainty about how the task unfolds more likely leads to local control over the TSC development.

The combined effects of the process of TSC composition (planned or emergent) and the nature of control over its development (centrally-controlled or locally- controlled) have important managerial implications, especially for inter-organisational coordination. In this study, inter-organisational coordination refers to the management of interdependent activities effectively, in the right place and at the right time. On the one hand, if there is a planned composition of the TSC and a central control over its development, the coordinating is more likely to be facilitated mostly by top-down mechanisms, such as contracts and hierarchies. This is because (1) there will be a unified set of coordinating authorities who planned the TSC composition and therefore know which organisations are part of the TSC, their activities and interdependencies, and (2) the centrally-controlled development of the TSC enables controlling authorities determine which organisations and relationships will be needed over time. On the other hand, if there is an emergent composition of the TSC and a local control over its development, the coordinating is more likely to be facilitated mostly by bottom-up mechanisms, such as interactions, social roles, and expert knowledge. This is because (1) there will be multiple coordinating actors, who might not know which organisations are part of the TSC, their activities and interdependencies, and (2) the local-controlled

141

development of the TSC does not enable authorities to determine which organisations and relationships will be needed over time. Therefore, these two aspects together help explain coordination in our cases, as we explore next.

Given the planned composition of the TSC for the Olympics and the central control over its development, inter-organisational coordination was primarily facilitated by top- down mechanisms defined by central coordinating authorities, such as organisational procedures/norms, contracts, schedules, and service level agreements (SLAs). These formal documents and norms defined what people and organisations should do and with whom they needed to interact. For example, the interdependent activities related to IT support and maintenance were executed by different organisations in a specific venue – these were defined in contracts and formal schedules. Another important aspect is that most of these coordination mechanisms were defined in a very centralized way by coordinating authorities (the OGOC and the city council of Rio). These two main organisations had an overall picture of the TSC and of the interdependencies; they were clearly in charge and therefore, acting like the coordinators of this TSC (top-down). Although top-down mechanisms were predominant in facilitating the coordinating at the high (supply chain) level, informal interactions and bottom-up adjustments, were also important for the execution of interdependent activities at the operational level, especially during Games-time.

Given the emergent composition of the TSC for the Ebola Response and the local control over its development, inter-organisational coordination was primarily facilitated by bottom-up mechanisms, such as professionalized norms and interactions among experts. Although UNMEER and the UN cluster system helped coordinate the Response, organisations under the UNMEER structure could not always know which actors were operating, their activities, and how they connected to each other. Therefore,

142

coordinating based on top-down mechanisms defined by central authorities was not always possible. Coordinating was facilitated primarily by mechanisms defined by the operating organisations and specialists. In other words, operating organisations such as the WHO coordinated efforts based on institutionalized health norms and on procedures used across emergencies (e.g. the UN system’s Overview of Needs and Requirements). Additionally, the data suggest that knowledge of individual experts was essential in facilitating coordination. For example, health specialists from multiple organisations helped manage the execution of interdependent activities in several villages, such as assembly of Ebola centres for treatment and immunization, through interactions and application of professionalised norms.

Assuming that inter-organisational coordination is about managing interdependent activities effectively in the right place and at the right time, coordination will ultimately influence the TSC performance; the more effective the coordinating, the better the TSC performance. These findings are summarized next:

Proposition 4: The combined effects of the TSC composition process and the nature of control over its development influence inter-organisational coordination.

Proposition 4a: Planned composition of the TSC and central control over its development more likely leads to coordinating based mostly on mechanisms defined by central coordinating authorities (top-down).

Proposition 4b: Emergent composition of the TSC and local control over its development more likely leads to coordinating based mostly on mechanisms defined by operating organisations and specialists (bottom-up).

Proposition 5: Inter-organisational coordination will affect the TSC performance; the more effective the coordinating, the better the TSC performance (i.e.

143

accomplishment of the TSC’s task satisfying the objectives of quality, delivery, and cost).