What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on your corporate strategy and business model? Is your company considering any changes to them in the post-pandemic period? If so, what changes do you envisage? 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. Int J Prod Res 58(10):2904–2915. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727 Aslam H, Khan AQ, Rashid K, ur Rehman S (2020) Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain agility. J Manuf Technol Manag 31(6):1185–1204. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-07-2019-0263 Hollnagel E, Woods D, Leveson N (eds) (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham

Companies that invest in new technologies benefit in the event of disruption. They are able to make an efficient analysis of how a particular phenomenon may affect their supply chain in the near term. When companies have knowledge of where the disruption will come from and which products will be affected, they have time to immediately implement avoidance and mitigation strategies by, for example, buying or controlling inventory allocation. Aslam H, Blome C, Roscoe S, Azhar TM (2018) Dynamic supply chain capabilities: how market sensing, supply chain agility and adaptability affect supply chain ambidexterity. Int J Oper Prod Manag 38(12):2266–2285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555 Koronis, E. and Illes, K. 2017. Leading Voluntary Organisations: an investigation of patterns, narratives and the value of authenticity . Voluntary Sector Studies Network Conference -
Leadership Stream
. The Open University, UK 23 - 23 Nov 2017 As shopping during the pandemic was made significantly more difficult for consumers, we decided to expand our business to include online sales, introducing new technological tools.

What changes has the pandemic caused to the structure of your company’s SC? Is your company planning SC reconfiguration after the COVID-19 pandemic? If so, to what extent? Hohenstein NO, Feisel E, Hartmann E, Giunipero L (2015) Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 45(1/2):90–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0128 O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. Calif Manag Rev 53(4):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5 Turner N, Kutsch E (2016) Understanding resilience in organizational operations-an ambidexterity perspective. Acad Manag Proc 2016(1):11836

He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 Proactive SCRES strategy based on exploitation This strategy includes practices aimed at systematic strengthening of the SCRES, based on the exploitation of available resources. They are typical of the earlier indicated SCRES readiness and growth phases. Organizations need to adopt a proactive approach to ensure resilience needed to absorb and avoid potential disruptions by not only returning to the original state through adaptation, but by surpassing it through developing specific elements to boost performance. Ali A, Mahfouz A, Arisha A (2017) Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag Int J 22(1):16–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2016-0197 Kang J, Diao Z, Zanini MT (2020) Business-to-business marketing responses to COVID-19 crisis: a business process perspective. Mark Intell Plan 39(3):454–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2020-0217 Yan M, Yu Y, Dong X (2016) Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity. Inf Technol People 29(3):647–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2015-0079

Simsek Z (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. J Manag Stud 46(4):597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x The ambidexterity concept can be implemented in SCM by developing practices, which help in both exploiting current competencies and exploring new ones. Generally, exploitation is focused on activities that help to transform resources into commercial ends (Pertusa-Ortega and Molina-Azorín 2018), improve existing operational processes (Blindenbach-Driessen and Van Den Ende 2014), components (Benner and Tushman 2002) and product-market domain (He and Wong 2004). According to March ( 1991), exploitation concerns refinement, efficiency, control and implementation (Blindenbach-Driessen and Van Den Ende 2014). It is related to exploiting existing strengths and using known solutions (Martin et al. 2019). Exploitation enables an organization to stay strong in actual activities (Blindenbach-Driessen and Van Den Ende 2014). Exploitation can be achieved by using the existing organizational resources and routinization (Aoki and Wilhelm 2017). Examples of exploitation activities applied to SC resources include supplier development, supplier qualification and automation of cross-organizational tasks (Rojo Gallego Burin et al. 2020). They are aimed at maintaining relationships with current suppliers, searching for SC solutions using the existing resources and leveraging current SC technologies (Lee and Rha 2016). Exploitation focusses on short-term benefits and measurable targets like cost reduction, reliability, risk reduction and the overall efficiency of the supply chain (Partanen et al. 2020). In the organizational learning approach, exploitation is related to the acquisition of knowledge by seeking, selection, processing of information and the betterment of existing routines through experience (Baum et al. 2000; Rojo Gallego Burin et al. 2020). Activities using the existing knowledge base are intended to refine current processes and technologies (Güemes-Castorena and Ruiz-Monroy 2020). OA can be implemented in a variety of ways. Most common approaches are: sequential ambidexterity, structural ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity (O’Reilly and Tushman 2013; Ossenbrink et al. 2019). Sequential and structural approaches try to overcome generic conflict between exploration and exploitation through separation of those activities. In former approach, it is temporal separation and in latter approach structural separation (Tushman and O’Reilly 1996; Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004). In contextual approach, employees make choices between alignment-oriented and adaptation-oriented activities in their day-to-day work. That is some kind of temporal separation of activities, but emerging on individual level (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004). Different studies proved that organizations apply in distinct configurations discussed approaches to ambidexterity (Fourné et al. 2019; O’Reilly and Tushman 2013). However, regardless of the approach, OA means implementing both exploration and exploitation practices. The results of our research study confirm high importance of OA in creating SCRES during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Both exploitation and exploration practices within SCM have created a basis of SCRES strategies developed during COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, identified practices evolve in terms of proactive and reactive nature of SCRES strategy. Most of them will become proactive ones, based on exploitation or exploration, after the COVID-19 pandemic. The in-depth analysis of proactive practices revealed SCM trends, that may improve the SCRES under OA in the post-COVID-19 world, namely such as: product assortment rationalization and development, reorientation of SCM strategies, reconfiguration of SC structures, processes and relations, technological transformation of business processes and relationship management. Exploring the Knowledge Management Landscape: A Critical Review of Existing Knowledge Management Frameworks

Rosing K, Zacher H (2017) Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 26(5):694–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1238358 Tuan LT (2016) Organisational ambidexterity and supply chain agility: the mediating role of external knowledge sharing and moderating role of competitive intelligence. Int J Logist Res Appl 19(6):583–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1137278 Güemes-Castorena D, Ruiz-Monroy BC (2020) Ambidexterity in the supply chain: studying the apparel industry. Int J Agile Syst Manag 13(2):130–158. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASM.2020.107904 Aylor B, Datta B, DeFauw M, Gilbert M, Knizek C, McAdoo M (2020) Designing resilience into global supply chains. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/resilience-in-global-supply-chains Birkinshaw J, Gibson C (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45(4):47–55Cottrell T, Nault BR (2004) Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strateg Manag J 25(10):1005–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.408