This framework evaluates technology readiness for supply chain collaboration, suggesting tailored assessments may enhance efficiency.
The digitalization of supply chain networks has accelerated the adoption of web-intensive collaboration platforms. However, the success of these initiatives is frequently constrained by disparities in technological readiness among partner organizations. This study addresses the critical role of readiness assessment in ensuring seamless integration of partners into web-based supply chain ecosystems. The proposed framework emphasizes three dimensions of preparedness: (i) connectivity infrastructure, focusing on internet connection type, upload/download speeds, and latency; (ii) system configuration, including hardware and software capabilities; and (iii) performance reliability, measured through bandwidth stability and response times. The research underscores that inadequate technological preparedness can delay onboarding, compromise application functionality, and weaken collaborative efficiency. Conversely, structured readiness assessments help identify gaps early, allow for targeted interventions, and enable cost-effective investments in upgrading systems. Practical tools such as self-assessment templates, standardized performance benchmarks, and partner-led diagnostic testing emerge as effective strategies to accelerate integration. The findings further highlight the importance of contextual tailoring, given regional variations in digital infrastructure, particularly in developing economies where connectivity bottlenecks remain prevalent. By institutionalizing readiness assessment as a formal phase of the partner onboarding process, organizations can significantly mitigate risk, ensure equitable participation, and enhance the resilience of digital supply chains. This work contributes to bridging the gap between technological infrastructure studies and supply chain collaboration literature, offering a pragmatic framework for both scholars and practitioners.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
N. Vishal Gupta (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: