You are on page 1of 31

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

A systems perspective on supply chain measurements

Stefan Holmberg
Article information:
To cite this document:
Stefan Holmberg, (2000),"A systems perspective on supply chain measurements", International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 Iss 10 pp. 847 - 868
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 21 December 2014, At: 02:11 (PT)
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.

To copy this document:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6309 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Benita M. Beamon, (1999),"Measuring supply chain performance", International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 19 Iss 3 pp. 275-292
A. Gunasekaran, C. Patel, E. Tirtiroglu, (2001),"Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain
environment", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 1/2 pp. 71-87
Jillian MacBryde, Zoe Radnor, Craig Shepherd, Hannes Günter, (2006),"Measuring supply chain
performance: current research and future directions", International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 55 Iss 3/4 pp. 242-258

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 529950 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit for more information.
About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

A systems perspective on Perspective on

supply chain
supply chain measurements measurements
Stefan Holmberg
Division of Logistics, Lund University, Sweden 847
Keywords Supply chain, Measurement, Systems integration, Performance measurement
Received April 1999
Abstract Both practitioners and research scientists have noted a number of problems regarding Revised February 2000,
measurement activities during the past decade. The problems reported suggest that measurement June 2000
activities are fragmented both within and across organizations. Expands on a systems perspective
on supply chain measurements and describes how problems can be communicated, understood
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

and managed by developing methods and tools for describing interrelationships within supply
chains. Empirical evidence from a case study of a Swedish home furnishing business supply chain
provides data suggesting that firms within a supply chain cannot simply be categorized as either
having adopted systems thinking or not. Rather, both structured models indicating a high degree
of systems thinking, and problems showing fragmentation, are present. A performance model,
which is used to reflect the systemic structure of an underlying supply chain and a potential
integrator, is introduced and suggested as the focus of future research initiatives within supply
chain measurements.

The interest in managing supply chains is growing rapidly among companies
around the world. Major forces behind this development are increasing
competitive pressure and a belief that working cooperatively in supply chains
can create a competitive advantage. Firms abandon the old antagonistic
approach to doing business in favor of a more integrative management style
focused on coordinating activities along the supply chain in order to attain or
sustain their competitive position.
Coordinating activities in a supply chain, however, is difficult. The
difficulties are partly due to the complexity induced by the large number of
related and interdependent activities in the supply chain. The fact that the
effects of certain actions are separated from their cause both in time and place
increases complexity, and is made even worse by the functional division of
responsibility along the supply chain. Understanding the interdependencies
and the complex causal relationships in a supply chain is therefore crucial to
the successful management of these activities. It is important to realize that
what you do not understand, you cannot manage.
Systems thinking offers a method for describing and analyzing problems in
such contexts, and is therefore well suited to solving the complex and dynamic
socioeconomic problems found in logistics systems today. However, the
problems reported by many organizations show that the use of systems
thinking is insufficiently developed, although it has been with us for several International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics
decades. Senge (1992) elaborates on this theme, and claims that firms seem Management,
Vol. 30 No. 10, 2000, pp. 847-868.
more concerned with detail ± as opposed to dynamic ± complexity. If firms deal # MCB University Press, 0960-0035
IJPDLM only with detail complexity, they are obstructed from seeing how relations of
30,10 different kinds reach beyond their own firms and change over time. The nature
of the problems reported indicates that many organizations act as autonomous
units instead of components of a larger system, and thus neglect the width and
scope of their interdependencies with other firms.
Unfortunately, the lack of systems thinking also influences how firms
848 approach another important area: the design of performance measurement
systems. A performance measurement system plays an important role in
managing a business as it provides the information necessary for decision
making and actions. Although this area has been pointed out many times as
strategically important, it still is not sufficiently understood (Keebler et al.,
1999; Atkinson et al., 1997; Vitale and Mavrinac, 1995; Eccles, 1991). The lack of
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

systems thinking becomes especially disturbing when measurement systems

are applied to supply chains.

The purpose of this article is to explain supply chain performance
measurement problems from a systems perspective. One important
objective is to show if and how the problems are a result of insufficient systems
thinking. Given the exploratory nature of this article, areas for future
research are suggested in order to contribute to the body of knowledge within

This article is based on an extensive literature review across disciplines such as
management, quality and logistics, in addition to observations from a case
study of six firms composing part of a supply chain in the home furnishing
business in Sweden. IKEA, a multinational company in the home furnishing
business, acted as host, providing access to organizations within IKEA as well
as to suppliers of finished goods. Several echelons of the supply chain were
included, ranging from retail outlet stores to manufacturers' plants. The
following organizations were included in the study:
. a sales organization;
. a wholesaler;
. a product development organization;
. a purchasing organization; and
. two key suppliers.
Each organization within IKEA was a separate legal entity dedicated
exclusively to IKEA operations. The fact that several echelons of the supply
chain were included promised that problems and phenomena related to
collaboration beyond dyadic relationships were examined.
Validity has been gained mainly by using triangulation of data sources and
research methods, but also by adopting member checks and debriefing by
peers. Regarding the collection of data, both semi-structured interviews and Perspective on
documents were used in addition to a questionnaire. Each of the three data supply chain
collection methods is presented in greater detail below: measurements
(1) A total of 33 semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted by a
single researcher, preceded by a test of the interview guide on three
respondents from IKEA. The interviews were conducted with
respondents at various levels within each of the organizations until 849
saturation was reached. The interviews, lasting between one and three
hours, were recorded and transcribed, leading to more than 250 pages of
single-spaced data. A manual method for the categorization, clustering
and analysis of interview data was used.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

(2) Documents showing such things as strategic business plans, financial

reports, performance reports, supplier evaluation criteria and worker
compensation criteria were collected when available. The purpose was
to collect information that could be used to complement, contrast or
verify the information provided through interviews.
(3) A questionnaire was used to assess the extent to which the actors in the
supply chain had a consistent view of priorities, and whether the
respondents found that they were measuring the right things or not. The
questionnaire was designed to follow the ideas of the Performance
Measurement Questionnaire developed by Dixon et al. (1990).

Outline of the article

In the following section, ``Supply chain fundamentals'', a brief description of
supply chain fundamentals is presented. The next section, ``Typical measurement
problems'', encompasses a discussion of common measurement problems. The
section ``Adopting systems thinking to measurements'' provides an introduction
to systems thinking and its application to supply chain performance
measurement, which is further developed in the following three sections ±
``Fragmented supply chain measurement activities'', ``Behavioral patterns'', and
``Structure determines behavior''. Some insights are presented in ``A new view of
measurement systems'' before the final section, ``Concluding discussion'', which
provides concluding remarks and suggestions for future research.

Supply chain fundamentals

In the following discussion a supply chain is viewed as a number of
organizations ± at least three ± working cooperatively with at least some
shared objectives. To understand how these firms interact, it is important to
notice how the management of such supply chains differs from classical
materials and manufacturing control. Oliver and Webber (1982) have described
the fundamentals of supply chain management as follows:
. The supply chain is viewed as a single entity, not fragmented areas of
responsibility for functional areas such as purchasing, manufacturing,
distribution, etc.
IJPDLM . A direct consequence of the first statement is that supply chain
30,10 management calls for ± and depends upon ± strategic decision making.
. Supply chain management includes a different perspective on
inventories, which are used as a balancing mechanism of last, not first,
850 . Supply chain management requires a new perspective on systems.
Organizations must be integrated, not simply interfaced.
The result of a study covering more than 100 manufacturers, distributors and
retailers conducted by Andersen Consulting and presented in 1997 (Anderson
et al., 1997) supported the concept presented above. The study showed that
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

companies that have successfully implemented supply chain management

have two things in common. First, they think about the supply chain as a
whole. Overcoming the inward-looking, self-focused attitude is thus a crucial
element in supply chain management. Second, they pursue tangible outcomes
focused on revenue growth, asset utilization and cost reduction.
In order to succeed, the firms adopted a number of principles that required
them to look at the supply chain from their suppliers' suppliers to their
customers' customers. The segmentation of customers, the customization of the
logistics network, the cross-functional planning process, the postponement of
product customization, and development of enterprise-wide systems for control
and monitoring all required the supply chain members to adopt a holistic view
of the supply chain. Neither of these initiatives would have been possible
without viewing the supply chain as one entity.
However, the firms in the study reported difficulties in a number of areas.
Assessing customer profitability was hard, partly because they lacked the
adequate tools to understand both their own and their customers' costs.
Furthermore, the independent, self-centered forecasting routine applied by
firms was identified as incompatible with excellent supply chain management,
and was replaced by cross-functional planning systems and processes. In order
to deal with high inventory levels and out-of-stock situations, distributors
started sharing information with the manufacturer, leading to improved fill
rates, asset turns, and cost metrics for all concerned.
Unsuccessful companies had an equally consistent profile. Those companies
were functionally oriented and narrowly focused. The problem was not a lack
of ideas about what to do, but instead about how to coordinate the efforts in
order to avoid ``dying the death of a thousand initiatives''. The functional
orientation and narrow focus that obstruct the coordination of activities for
those companies suggest that they lack a holistic perspective, and that systems
thinking in those supply chains is underdeveloped. In essence, the study shows
that those firms that have succeeded have adopted a holistic view of the supply
chain, recognizing that the outcome that counts is that of the entire supply
chain, not that of single organizations.
Typical measurement problems Perspective on
Research scientists have shown an increasing interest in improving the supply chain
measurement systems design during the last few years (Keebler et al., 1999; measurements
Vitale and Mavrinac, 1995; Caplice and Sheffi, 1995; Kaplan and Norton, 1992;
Eccles, 1991). They have questioned traditional performance measurement for
several good reasons, not least because of its inability to allocate resources to
areas important to future success, e.g. the development of employees' 851
competency, capabilities and skills (Vitale and Mavrinac, 1995). A few
important problems are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

Strategy and measurements are not connected

One problem that deserves attention is the lack of connection between strategy
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

and measurements. Adams et al. (1995) report that many measurement

initiatives are not derived from strategy and are therefore not supporting the
business. Although it seems obvious and natural to base a measurement
system on the company's strategy, Eccles (1991) claims that a surprising
number of companies do little to measure the variables described in their
strategies. Because of the missing connection, measures and measurement
activities seem focused on internal functions instead of overall company
performance and customer needs. For instance, a firm may measure
productivity throughout its own facility and closely track that goods are
shipped on time, but pay little or no attention to whether the goods actually
arrive at the customers' facilities when promised or needed.
Furthermore, because of the weak link to strategy, different divisions and
functions have developed their own metrics in isolation and linked local reward
incentives to those measures. This might lead them in different directions.
Thus, the missing connection between strategy and measurements promotes
an internal focus, which becomes an obstacle to developing supply chain
measurement systems. However, not all strategies are successful. Regardless of
how well a measurement system is connected to strategy, it will not turn a
losing strategy into a winning one.

A biased focus on financial metrics

Many companies still rely too heavily on financial figures as their key
performance indicators, which unfortunately are better at showing the result of
yesterday's actions than indicating tomorrow's performance. Financial metrics
have served as a tool for comparing firms and evaluating a firm's behavior over
time, and the information was primarily designed to meet external evaluators'
Today the situation is quite different. People inside the organizations have
more responsibility, and financial information is not decision-relevant to them
(Atkinson et al., 1997). The lagging nature of financial metrics makes them less
useful for proactive actions. What meaningful actions to manage a situation
can be taken when the report finally arrives two weeks after the event?
IJPDLM Furthermore, the usefulness of financial information is reduced by the
30,10 aggregation of data over time and place, which makes it even more difficult to
Success in business today is not solely determined by a strong cash flow
or meeting a financial budget. Instead, developing competency, capabilities
and skills in areas such as team-based problem solving and innovation are
852 much more important, yet not easily measured in financial terms (Vitale
and Mavrinac, 1995). Some firms have started to regularly report how much
time and other resources are invested in employee development programs, or
how well the firm's competency profile meets future demands. Therefore,
describing the complex and dynamic characteristics of a supply chain in
financial terms alone is no longer sufficient, as it provides too simplified a view
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

of the supply chain. Nonetheless, accounting-based information plays an

important role in strategic planning and for monitoring financial results,
although it is less suitable for controlling and improving activities (Johnson,

Too many isolated and incompatible measures

The number and variety of metrics used in organizations tend to increase
over time, and require more and more resources to produce. Because metrics
once introduced are too seldom removed, they soon become obsolete as strategy
and underlying activities continue to change. For instance, why do firms
continue giving top priority to goods handling efficiency and fill rate in
trucks, when what the customers really need are timely and accurate
shipments of goods? A common conclusion is that measurement systems have
measured too many things and the wrong things. The negative impact of
insufficient measurement systems can be severe. For example, Baldwin and
Clark (1992) claim that a major cause of the USA's competitive decline is due
directly to the managers' use of inappropriate performance measurement

The problems in a supply chain context

The problems described earlier are mainly those reported by single
organizations. However, it seems reasonable to assume that similar problems
will occur and negatively affect management actions in supply chains
(Holmberg, 1997). This assumption is based on the prevailing lack of systems
thinking, and the increased complexity in supply chains encompassing several
organizations with different corporate cultures, different policies and different
routines. Using a single-firm management style when managing a supply chain
is therefore likely to obstruct supply chain integration.
The idea proposed in this article is that the measurement activities in supply
chains are not managed as one system, but as several independent systems (see
Figure 1). To make this point clearer, the next section will deal with some of the
basic ideas in systems thinking and discuss measurement activities from that
Adopting systems thinking to performance measurement Perspective on
Logisticians often claim to use systems thinking when managing the flow of supply chain
goods and information from point of origin to end consumers, but few authors measurements
explain why or how the concept is used. Perhaps the lack of openness and
clarity is unintentional. Nevertheless, it obstructs both research scientists and
practitioners from developing a deeper understanding of how complex
problems can be approached, understood, and solved. 853
The systems concept
The idea of a system is generally expressed as encompassing inter-connected
components separated from their environment by a system border. Checkland
(1993) provides the following definition:
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

The central concept system embodies the idea of a set of elements connected together, which
form a whole, this showing properties which are properties of the whole, rather than
properties of its component parts.

The rationale for using systems thinking is that it provides a method for
describing, analyzing and planning complex systems of different kinds
(Gustafsson et al., 1982). This method offers a way of understanding problems
and communicating this understanding to others. Systems analysis helps us
depict real world systems by using a structured way of building models. The
general approach is to define components (rules, policies, phenomena,
machines, people, etc.), decide what components should be included in the
system, and define how the components are related.
A simple systems analysis could be to look at the order fulfillment process,
including the ordering of products, the picking of orders, and the shipment of
goods to the customers. If we decide to look only at what happens in the
warehouse, we would optimize the routines for the consolidation of goods on
pallets so that the handling of goods in the warehouse becomes as efficient as
possible. That would improve the productivity of that isolated unit. If, on the
other hand, we were to consider what happens to the goods once they arrive at
the customer's plant, the decisions and actions would perhaps look different.
The customer may want to have the goods sorted in a specific manner, because
they are sent to different locations in the customer's plant. Not sorting the
goods may make the distributor's operations efficient, but it induces increased
costs for the customer. Consequently, viewing the wholesaler's and the
retailer's operations as one entity provides opportunities for improvements not
possible if each were analyzed separately.

Figure 1.
measurement activities
IJPDLM Thus, within systems thinking, qualitative data and metaphors can be used to
30,10 depict what the components look like and how they are related. Because not
every possible component can be included in the system for practical reasons
(see example above), only closely related components relevant to the issue at
hand are chosen. For example, although handling equipment plays an
important role in the warehouse, describing how this equipment is serviced and
854 maintained does not necessarily add much value to the discussion of order

Analyzing measurement problems from a systems perspective

Checkland's statement captures the problems in supply chain measurements
quite well. Because measurement activities are generally not considered as a set
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

of connected components, the properties on the whole are not recognized. The
total cost concept may serve as an example. If, for instance, the cost of
transportation and the cost of inventory in a firm were managed separately
instead of jointly, the entity ``total cost'' encompassing both components would
not exist. Thus, we would, for example, not be able to discuss the trade-off
between the two cost components, which means that an important opportunity
for improvement is lost.
One important shortcoming of many firms is their inability ± or
unwillingness ± to widen the scope of their measurement activities. When
limiting their focus to a single organization and neglecting to consider local
measurement activities as part of a greater whole, they miss an opportunity to
capitalize on how the measurement system could contribute to improving
supply chain performance by taking waste out of the supply chain, not just
moving it somewhere else.
For example, when firms use sales to intermediate customers as a measure
of performance and actively try to maximize sales, they delimit the perspective
and cut themselves off from the ones setting the pace in the supply chain.
Because sales to intermediate customers does not show whether a final
consumer pays for the product or not, it may lead to increased inventory build-
up and higher costs. Measuring local productivity and local costs has the same
effect, i.e. an increased risk of sub-optimization of the supply chain. Again, it is
important to adopt a wide enough scope of measurement activities to remove ±
or at least reduce ± inefficiencies in the supply chain.

A systems analysis framework

The following discussion is aimed at positioning measurement problems and
initiatives in a framework based on systems thinking, suggesting that adopting
a systemic view of the supply chain can assist in improving performance. The
framework is based on Senge's (1992) ideas about what kinds of explanations
to phenomena firms use, depending on how well they have adopted systems
Firms not recognizing the relationships between phenomena within the
context in which they operate characterize the first and lowest level of
adoption. Those firms turn to event explanations, which means that they Perspective on
generally (re)act on single events, and find themselves victims of supply chain
circumstances. Whatever happens to them is perceived as resulting from measurements
external factors, which they assume cannot be controlled or influenced. This
kind of firm tends to develop a self-centered and inward looking attitude, partly
due to an insufficient exchange of information with its trading partners.
Because the firms perceive the components (people, resources, phenomena, etc.) 855
as independent units, their operations become fragmented and their behavior
reactive, partly because the firms look only within their own organizations for
explanations or solutions.
Firms at level two are concerned with describing behavioral patterns, i.e.
how phenomena change over time and place, e.g. seasonal variations over a
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

year and the fluctuations in demand across a supply chain. Thus, the firms
recognize some kinds of relationships between phenomena, and do not consider
them as being totally independent. Consequently, it becomes important for
them to collect information although it cannot always be fully utilized or
understood. Because they know from experience what may happen ± albeit not
exactly when it will happen ± they can plan better to cope with things bound to
happen. Yet, they generally do not know how to prevent them from happening
because they do not understand the underlying engines of change.
At the third level, which is considered the most developed one, firms deal
with how structure determines behavior. Those readers familiar with the Beer
Game may remember that the problems people experienced in supplying beer
throughout the supply chain were not caused by people wanting things to go
wrong. Instead, the problems were largely caused by the isolation of each
echelon in the supply chain. No information except orders was provided, which
forced each member of the supply chain into a reactive behavior. The structure
that determines behavior is composed of both tangible things, e.g. computers
and communication equipment, and intangible things such as policies, culture
and values. Understanding how structure determines behavior is crucial to the
successful restructuring of supply chain measurement systems leading to a
predicted and desired outcome.
The following three sections are intended to illustrate how typical
measurement problems and activities can be positioned in the framework
presented above. This is done in order to argue that adopting a systemic view
of supply chain activities may induce desired behavior. The description of
typical firms is sometimes quite categorical for the purpose of clarity. In reality,
firms are likely to be less ``typical''.

Fragmented supply chain measurement activities

Many activities and tasks are carried out in a firm's daily operations. For
instance, goods are received from suppliers and put into warehouses, customer
orders are registered, products are picked and shipped, and invoices are sent.
Sometimes it all works well and customers receive the products they have
ordered when they expected to, but sometimes it does not.
IJPDLM Managers in charge of the operations sometimes introduce metrics to allow
30,10 them to be in control. When a specific problem or activity has received
management attention for a while, it is usually corrected. Attention is then
automatically focused on other and more urgent problems. While new metrics
are defined to monitor the new problems, the old metrics are kept because the
problem might turn up again. Consequently, the number of metrics increases
856 while consuming more and more resources, but adding little value.
Understanding what goes on in a firm or in a supply chain can be quite
difficult, which to some extent can be explained by the flow of information
being delimited and fragmented both within and across firms. Not to add to the
confusion, fragmentation within a firm will henceforth be called ``internal
fragmentation'', whereas fragmentation across firms will be called ``external
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)


Internal fragmentation
Understanding the meaning of a single metric might be easy, but the meaning
of the metrics in combination and their effect on overall company performance
is hard to intuitively understand. One problem is that ``controller figures'' based
on financial accounting systems, and expressed in financial terms, are not
easily compared with ``engineering figures'' focused on the movement of bits
and pieces resulting in volumes and flows. For example, it is not obvious how
the loading or unloading of goods or the productivity in order picking influence
the operational result of a distribution center. Other factors such as goods
handling damages, delivery quality or inventory accuracy greatly influence the
performance of the operations as a whole. Furthermore, the use of financial
accounting information promotes a functional perspective within an
organization, mainly because resources are allocated from the top down,
whereas goods and services flow horizontally through the firm.
The fragmentation is reinforced by different conceptions of performance,
which negatively influence communication between people. Top management
and controllers ± being affected by external stakeholders ± often use financial
information for assessing the performance of the firms, while people on the
shop floor prefer other kinds of information. The concept of performance
clearly varies between different levels in an organization, which causes
difficulties in integrating measurements across the operational, tactical and
strategic levels.

External fragmentation
Fragmentation across firms, for example in supply chains, means that not
much information is shared. The self-centered attitude of firms and their
unwillingness to look beyond their own firms creates a barrier to improving
performance. The following example from IKEA may illustrate the point.
Starting at the retail end of the supply chain, a retail outlet manager claimed
to be ``squeezed'' between the customers and the supplying organization, and
claimed that both costs and sales were given equal (top) priority in his
organization. The message he received from the top management was ``. . . Perspective on
focus on sales, sales, sales to 100 percent and focus on cut, cut, cut (costs) to 100 supply chain
percent''. Because each store had a fixed budget (in absolute figures, not as measurements
share of revenues), it was difficult to improve sales by e.g. hiring more sales
personnel. The only way to free resources was to focus on productivity in the
store, which reinforced the focus on internal matters.
The supplying wholesale organization, being under constant pressure to 857
reduce costs, had an equally strong focus on productivity. Operating on a
margin of a few percent of revenues did not allow for extravagant service to the
retailers. A request from a retailer to have tailored shipments encompassing
unique mixtures of products and lower than normal delivery quantities was not
received well by the wholesale organization. One reason the request did not
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

lead to a meaningful discussion was the lack of (comparable) performance

figures. Each party, for example, measured productivity in their own way.
Because the retailer's request was not accompanied by an estimate of expected
savings, no trade-off calculation could be made.
At the procurement side of the supply chain, the purchasing organization
was focusing on keeping the purchase price low as it was driving costs
throughout the supply chain. Aside from measuring purchase price
development, suppliers' delivery performance was also closely monitored. Due
to a complex order system, delivery plans were not very well coordinated with
real customer demands, which forced suppliers to deliver goods according to
plan whether IKEA needed the products or not. Behind this strange behavior
was a measure of supplier delivery performance linked to a bonus system in the
purchasing organization. Thus, individual interests negatively influenced
supply chain performance. This counterproductive connection was later
identified and removed.
Although the main part of the IKEA supply chain was controlled by IKEA
itself, firms within the supply chain adopted a self-centered behavior, which
was reinforced by the way performance was monitored. The retail outlet
manager being ``squeezed'', the wholesaler having his hands tied by a small
operating margin and the purchasing organization driven by purchase price, all
to some degree point at event explanations to their situation. In order to break
up this state of affairs in the IKEA supply chain, it is necessary to widen the
scope of their perspectives. Otherwise, the retailer will continue to look for
solutions to his problems within his own organization, the wholesaler will
remain focused on internal operational efficiency without considering the effect
on the retailer, and suppliers will continue fighting unsuccessfully for ideas
which make sense and which might improve supply chain efficiency.

Behavioral patterns
Understanding what happens in a supply chain and why it happens can be
difficult for firms with limited information about what is going on in other
parts of the supply chain. One way of reducing this problem without changing
the underlying causes is to exchange more and other kinds of information.
IJPDLM With sufficient and carefully selected information provided by measurement
30,10 systems, it becomes possible for firms to understand better what is going on
and what is about to happen. As mentioned in the framework, firms cannot
prevent it from happening, but can plan and act to reduce its negative effects.
Consequently, within supply chain management literature, information
exchange is viewed as an absolutely necessary and indisputable component in
858 any successful supply chain, having a tremendous impact on firms' operations.

Coordination through information exchange

Information sharing is without question important, but depending on what
information is shared, when and how it is shared and with whom, information
seems to have different functions in the supply chain. The literature reports
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

that firms usually start sharing sales information such as point-of-sales (POS)
information in order to coordinate activities. The case study at IKEA showed
that information used for coordination purposes was generally captured in one
part or firm of the supply chain ± most often downstream ± and distributed to
the other parts of the supply chain (see Figure 2). Such information can, when
provided in a timely fashion, make it possible for one process to respond to the
needs and limitations of another process, which is an important part of the
integration process (Alter, 1996).
POS data were shared among IKEA organizations in the case study, whereas
suppliers received POS data only occasionally and often too late to be useful. For
the majority of suppliers, sales information came indirectly in the form of orders,
which more often than not were distorted from the journey through IKEA's
order system. Unmotivated fluctuations in order quantities, which showed no
similarity with the fluctuations in real consumer demands, forced suppliers to
alternate between high and low capacity utilization of plants. Consequently,
suppliers were obstructed from running their operations as efficiently as they
knew was possible, partly due to the way information was shared.

Recognition of relationships
Relationships between phenomena, e.g. between goods availability in retail
outlets and delivery lead-time, are seldom explicitly described or explained.
Instead, those measures are presented in the same performance report with no
explanation as to how they are related. The ``logic'' connecting them, which is
not openly or widely communicated, is ``owned'' by a few people within the

Figure 2.
supporting coordination
organization who have the necessary training, knowledge and understanding Perspective on
of the organization. The rest of the users of the information are thrown upon supply chain
their own resources to interpret it and turn it into actions. measurements
The one organization in the IKEA case study possessing the overall
responsibility of the supply chain developed a performance model called ``the
product management model''. This model consisted of measures within five
different areas: 859
(1) product range;
(2) cost;
(3) quality;
(4) availability; and
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

(5) service.
The areas of measurement were identified as important to the consumers
during the buying process, which in turn represented the logic connecting the
five areas. Consumers were assumed to fancy a wide and attractive product
range, assess whether the products offered value for money or not, and whether
the product was available in stock to take home. Although the measures were
logically related, no explicit descriptions of how they were connected were
provided, i.e. no cause-and-effect relationships were explicitly or widely
described or communicated. This meant that each manager had to develop
his/her own idea of what created business success.
The product management model illustrates an organization's ambition to
make explicit the priorities of the supply chain. Still, the model was only
moderately well received and used by managers, who instead turned to
self-developed tools and reports. An inherent weakness of the model was that it
did not manage ± or was never intended ± to make explicit the relationships
between the different dimensions of performance.
One important thing to notice is that the scope of measurement activities
encompassed several organizations, and IKEA no longer viewed the
phenomena as isolated, but as interrelated. Although no relationships were
made explicit, the different dimensions of performance were considered part of
a greater whole, which is fundamental in systems thinking. For instance,
inventory levels in different parts of the supply chain were monitored and
reported, which made it possible to reduce the total amount of inventory in the
supply chain. Instead of clear definitions of the relationship between, e.g.
customer service measures and measures of inventory levels and the like, IKEA
relied on safety stock calculations, rules of thumb and experience.
The view of measurement activities presented earlier (see Figure 1) has
developed into a new measurement structure illustrated in Figure 3.

Structure determines behavior

Firms that have moved beyond event explanations and descriptions of
behavioral patterns have expressed an ambition to do better, to get ahead of the
IJPDLM problems. They have experienced a need to describe how the different activities
30,10 in the firm ± or across firms ± are related. What they intuitively know about
their business may have been discussed before, but not explicitly described.
They know that they want to use the information derived from the
measurement system to induce behavior that is supportive of a strategy
(Adams et al., 1995). Furthermore, they have realized that they still lack a
860 crucial and often ignored step in developing a useful measurement system: the
definition of a business performance model that contains the often-implicit
relationships between management actions and results (Eccles and Pyburn,

A new understanding of relationships

Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

Some interesting things have happened recently in measurement system

design. First, firms have started using their strategy as a base, as strategy
determines the scope and focus of the measurement system (Adams et al.,
1995). Second, firms are balancing different dimensions of performance, e.g.
service quality, innovation skills and costs to reduce the negative impact and
reactive behavior induced by financially oriented metrics. Third, instead of
looking only at the result, firms define causal relationships between the result
and the engines of the result.
The complex network of interrelated activities in supply chains makes it
difficult for managers to describe and understand how those activities are
related and how they influence each other. This is not unusual, because many
situations in management and economics can be described as high-order
non-linear systems, and intuitive solutions to such complex problems are
extremely difficult to find (Forrester, 1991). For example, how does the work
scheme and compensation program in an order-picking group in a warehouse
influence the firm's customers' ability to serve their customers? These kinds of
questions do arise in a supply chain context, but common tools and techniques
provide little help in answering such questions.
It is difficult not only to adequately depict these kinds of relationships
because so many factors influence the result, but also to communicate them to
others (Senge, 1992; Forrester, 1991). When measuring performance in this
context, it is much too easy to escape the problem by focusing on single units'
performances instead of relating the measurements to overriding objectives.
Single, fragmented measures provide little information because the context is
missing. For example, is a 10 percent increase in productivity in unit A good or
bad? Well, it depends, for example, on whether the overall performance in
terms of service quality and costs has improved. At best, such information is

Figure 3.
The new way of looking
at supply chain
useless, but improperly designed performance measurement systems may even Perspective on
be quite harmful and obstruct decision makers' learning processes (McNann supply chain
and Nanni, 1994). measurements
Performance models
A perhaps well-known model showing important relationships is the balanced
scorecard, created by Kaplan and Norton (1992) in the early 1990s. Besides 861
introducing a concept of balancing four different dimensions of performance,
they use cause-and-effect relationships to describe how the four dimensions of
performance are connected. The model is claimed to be not merely a
measurement tool, but moreover a management system to clarify and translate
strategy and vision into strategic objectives. This is important, as managers
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

tend to develop their own understanding of what the strategy means to

themselves individually. It is also a tool to communicate and link strategic
objectives and measures in the organization. The process of planning, setting
targets and aligning strategic initiatives is facilitated by the balanced
scorecard, which ultimately aims at enhancing strategic feedback and learning.
An illustration of how the four different dimensions of performance can be
linked by cause-and-effect relationships is offered in Figure 4.
This model has become quite popular, possibly because it provides a long-
awaited tool to relate different dimensions of performance. Critics (for example,
Neely et al., 1997) claim, however, that the model fails to answer one of the most
important questions of all: what are the competitors doing?

Figure 4.
Linear cause-and-effect
IJPDLM Whereas Kaplan and Norton use a linear cause-and-effect relationship in their
30,10 model, Senge (1992) uses a different technique in which he turns the linear
cause-and-effect relationships into circular loops (see Figure 5). The technique
of closing the loop plays an important role as it challenges people's desire to
oversimplify relationships. The idea of closed loops may not be that
controversial after all, although people often stick to linear cause-and-effect
862 relationships. People are likely to accept the idea that improved financial
results offer an opportunity to reinvest the money in the business, and, for
example, improve internal processes, reward employees and stimulate
innovative ideas. Thus, there is a link from what seemed like an end, to what
can be viewed as engines of success.
Both models serve the same purpose, i.e. to uncover the ``mechanisms'' of the
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

business. The models make it possible to connect different phenomena and

thus describe ± albeit in vague terms ± how they interact. Of course, the
number of links can be high, and the need for simplification obvious.
Nevertheless, the models provide a means of communicating the ideas about
such things as how sales can be increased or how overall productivity can
improve by adopting non-obvious solutions. For example, according to
Figure 5, improving profitability might be easier if resources are spent on
removing the obstacles to increased profitability, i.e. the increased distribution
costs, instead of allocating resources to increased marketing efforts.
Worth mentioning is an initiative taken to improve supply chain
performance through a measurement called the SCOR model. The model is
developed by the Supply-Chain Council (SCC), an independent, not-for-profit,
global corporation, and based on a process view of the supply chain using four
distinct management processes:
(1) plan;
(2) source;
(3) make; and
(4) deliver (see Figure 6).
The process reference model integrates the well-known concepts of business
process re-engineering, benchmarking, and process measurements into a

Figure 5.
Circular cause-and-effect
Perspective on
supply chain

Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

Figure 6.
The SCOR model
described at different
levels of detail

cross-functional framework. Each of the four processes at the top level is

successively divided into sub-processes, first at a configuration level, then at a
process element level. Finally, at the fourth level and beyond the scope of the
SCOR model, activities are defined by companies individually. Measures are
defined for all processes at the three top levels, and firms provide information
about how they perform while receiving a benchmark in return against which
they can compare their own performance. This model provides not only an
opportunity to see how the firm is doing, but also a common frame of reference
and a common language across the supply chain.

Measurements across organizations at IKEA

The above mentioned performance models aimed at reflecting the structure of
the underlying system. In the IKEA case, one such model had been used for
years, even before the ideas about supply chain wide measurement systems
emerged in business literature. The system in question was a cost calculation
system covering parts of the supply chain, which enabled managers to estimate
the (average) cost of distribution from purchase of finished goods until delivery
to stores. Although the model was by no means perfect (more of that in a
moment) it provided a tool for analyzing the cost structure at a high level of
detail across several firms in the supply chain.
Whereas the sharing of POS information from the retail outlet enabled firms
upstream in the supply chain to respond better and faster to changes in
customer demands, it provided merely an opportunity for coordinating existing
processes. In contrast, cost information as provided by the above mentioned
cost calculation system made it possible to compare one part of the supply
chain with another, as information was collected from each of the
organizations. Other examples of such information are inventory levels and
lead time (see Figure 7).
IJPDLM Capturing and exchanging cost information is a sensitive and debated issue,
30,10 where many firms want to reveal their partners' cost structure, but not give
away their own. IKEA was no exception to that rule. In the case study, costs
were captured only in the mid-part of the supply chain, leaving suppliers and
retail stores out. Because no detailed cost information was provided from the
retail stores (only figures of gross margin and generic information about cost
864 structures), the effect of direct deliveries from suppliers to stores was difficult
to assess. A number of other problems or shortcomings were related to
measuring costs the way IKEA did. One obstacle to comparability of figures
was that costs were mixed with mark-ups at each organization in the model.
Another problem was that figures in the system were calculated as average
figures, which made it impossible to distinguish one product from another.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

Measuring and comparing, e.g. costs, for the purpose of removing

inefficiencies from the supply chain is often difficult, partly because it requires
significant alignment of data structures, which to some degree is dictated by
government rules and regulations. Many firms are not likely to have the
systems or capabilities in place to make this alignment without great efforts.
An even greater obstacle is the lack of trust and firms' willingness to share
proprietary information. It seems true though that exchanging this kind of
information among partners does facilitate analyses and discussions that may
lead to structural changes influencing the firms' competitive positions.
Returning for a moment to the other measures that crossed the IKEA supply
chain, measuring inventory levels was uncontroversial and a rather technical
matter. The firms in the case measured inventory in retail outlets and
distribution centers, but did not include suppliers' stock. In general, this
information was primarily used for capacity planning purposes and, of course,
to avoid gross overstocks. Measuring lead times, however, was a bit more
difficult. The most prominent difficulty with sharing lead-time information was
that data could not be captured at all points where they made sense (e.g. when
goods arrived at retail stores), and those data were captured in the wrong
format (the highest level of detail was ``day'' instead of ``hour''). The result was
that variances in lead time to stores could not be analyzed or fed back to
transporters to improve performance, for example.
Collaborating on performance measurements means, among other things,
that the firms are getting closer to each other. It also means that the borders
become less distinct. Getting access to information beyond a single firm makes

Figure 7.
Measures used in
measurement activities
it possible for firms to fight event explanations, and act in accordance with Perspective on
wider objectives, e.g. that of a supply chain. In essence, sharing information as supply chain
illustrated above is supportive of the integration process. measurements
A new view of measurement systems
The literature often deals with measurement system design focused on either
what metrics to deploy in certain situations and their inherent characteristics, 865
or on the process of developing a proper measurement system. In contrast, the
discussion throughout this article has been from a systems perspective, trying
to show that measurement activities throughout supply chains often are not
designed with a systemic perspective in mind. Whereas measurement activities
at the lowest stages of systems thinking have been depicted as fragmented, it is
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

suggested that some kind of model building take place at the higher stages of
systems thinking. This model building, however, is not often reflected in
literature, but has been suggested by Eccles and Pyburn (1992). A structural
view of a measurement system in line with the argumentation throughout this
article is therefore depicted in Figure 8. Each of the three components in
Figure 8 has been touched upon throughout this article: the metrics, the need to
align measurement methods across organizations, and the development of a
performance model. Above all, these three components have been viewed as
parts of the same system.
One consequence of the notion that a supply chain must be viewed as one
entity is that the measurement system should span the entire supply chain.
Thus, each of the components in the measurement system outlined in Figure 8
must be considered throughout the entire supply chain (see Figure 9). This
offers an opportunity to position future research initiatives.
Some research has without question been conducted in this area, for instance
by Brewer and Speh (2000), who have explored the issue of what to measure
in supply chains. Their framework is one based on the ideas developed by

Figure 8.
A structural view of a
measurement system
IJPDLM Kaplan and Norton (1992), and includes the balancing of different dimensions
30,10 of performance. The authors provide a wide range of challenging metrics to
support and improve supply chain operations and performance. Another
example is the work underlying the development of the SCOR model. However,
more research is required in order to understand what should be measured,
when and why. This is important, not least to explain why so few firms
866 actually have adopted boundary-spanning metrics.
The advancement in information technology and database techniques
makes it interesting to develop new solutions for measurement methods. Yet,
designing common methods for measurements will most likely be a difficult
nut to crack. One reason is that many firms possess a blend of old and new
computer systems, computer software and database structures that will
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

obstruct them from making changes without great effort.

Finally, an area of the utmost importance to investigate further is the
development and use of performance models in managing supply chains.
Because of the increasing complexity in supply chains and the decentralization
of decision making, employees' need for proper tools for improved
understanding and learning increases by the hour. How should information be
communicated to facilitate learning? What do employees need in order to turn
information into consistent decision making and actions in supply chains, and
what role can a wisely designed performance model play? The more integrated
firms want to become, and the faster the change, the more important this
question is likely to become.

Concluding discussion
The purpose of this article was to explain common measurement problems
from a systems perspective, and to show if and how the problems are a result of
insufficient systems thinking. Among the problems described were the weak
link between strategy and actions, a heavy reliance on financial measures
causing reactive behavior, and a confusing multitude of isolated measures.
Together the problems made it difficult for firms to understand and act upon
the information provided by their measurement systems. It was also argued in
the article that measurement systems seem fragmented regarding both the
notions of performance and how measurements are conducted across the
supply chain.
The conceptual soundness of the framework for how systems thinking can
develop presented in this article is challenged by data from the case study at

Figure 9.
Areas for future
research initiatives
IKEA, which suggests that phenomena related to each of the stages can exist in Perspective on
parallel. For instance, a fairly structured model for cost calculation was used in supply chain
parts of the supply chain, while problems indicating the lowest level of systems measurements
thinking were found in different parts of the same supply chain. Consequently,
from this research one cannot conclude that if a firm shows signs of a high
degree of adoption of systems thinking in one part of the supply chain or in one
area, it automatically means that this kind of thinking has been consistently 867
adopted across all firms, or across all areas.
Given the limitations of the research underlying this article, suggestions for
future research are primarily directed at developing a better understanding of
whether and how performance models should be used in order to facilitate
understanding and learning in a supply chain context. Furthermore, the
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

adoption of systems thinking and the development of more sophisticated

explanations based on system structures, suggest that measurement activities
might facilitate the integration process across supply chains. More research is
needed in this area also in order to support the development of supply chain
Adams, S.M., Sarkis J. and Liles D. (1995), ``The development of strategic performance metrics'',
Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Alter, S. (1996), Information Systems ± A Manager's Perspective, The Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing Company, Menlo Park, CA.
Anderson, D.L., Britt, F.E. and Favre, D.J. (1997), ``The seven principles of supply chain
management'', Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H. and Wells, R.B. (1997), ``A stakeholder's approach to strategic
performance measurement'', Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 25-37.
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (1992), ``Capabilities and capital investment: new perspectives on
capital budgeting'', Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 67-82.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2000), ``Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain
performance'', Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Caplice, C. and Sheffi, Y. (1995), ``A review and evaluation of logistics performance measurement
systems'', The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Checkland, P. (1993), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), The New Performance Challenge Measuring
Operations for World-class Competition, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), ``The performance measurement manifesto'', Harvard Business Review,
January/February, pp. 131-7.
Eccles, R.G. and Pyburn, P.J. (1992), ``Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance'',
Management Accounting, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 41-4.
Forrester, J.W. (1991), ``System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years'', in De Greene, K.B. (Ed.),
The Systemic Basis of Policy Making in the 1990s, Sloan School of Management, MIT,
Boston, MA.
Gustafsson, L., Lanshammar, H. and Sandblad, B. (1982), System och Modell ± En Introduktion till
Systemanalysen, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
IJPDLM Holmberg, S. (1997), ``Measurements on an integrated supply chain'', thesis for the degree
Licentiate of Engineering, Department of Engineering Logistics, Lund.
30,10 Johnson, H.T. (1990), ``Performance measurement for competitive excellence'', in Kaplan, R.S.
(Ed.), Measures for Manufacturing Excellence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA, pp. 63-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), ``The balanced scorecard ± measures that drive
performance'', The Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 71-9.
868 Keebler, J.S., Manrodt, K.B., Durtshe, D.A. and Ledyard, D.M. (1999), Keeping Score Measuring
the Business Value of Logistics in the Supply Chain, Council of Logistics Management, Oak
Brook, IL.
McNann, P. and Nanni, A.J. Jr (1994), ``Is your company really measuring performance?'',
Management Accounting, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 55-8.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1997), ``Performance measurement systems design a
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

literature review and research agenda'', International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Oliver, R.K. and Webber, M.D. (1982), Outlook, Booz, Allen & Hamilton.
Senge, P.M. (1992), The Fifth Discipline ± The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization,
Century Business, London.
Supply Chain Council,
Vitale, M.R. and Mavrinac, S.C. (1995), ``How effective is your performance measurement
system?'', Management Accounting, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 43-7.
This article has been cited by:

1. Veronica S Ülgen, Helena Forslund, ThomasF Burgess. 2015. Logistics performance management in
textiles supply chains: best-practice and barriers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 64:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy. 2015. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and
sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 86, 360-377. [CrossRef]
3. Arpita Khare, Anshuman Khare. 2014. Harnessing Supply Chain Efficiency Through Information
Linkages. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 5:10.4018/
IJISSCM.20121001, 86-104. [CrossRef]
4. Yasuo Saeki, Sven Horak. 2014. Trust and the cultivation of relation-specific skills. Evidence from
a multinational automotive supplier in Japan and Germany. Management Decision 52:8, 1433-1450.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

5. Vasco Sanchez Rodrigues, John Cowburn, Andrew Potter, Mohamed Naim, Anthony Whiteing. 2014.
Developing “Extra Distance” as a measure for the evaluation of road freight transport performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:7, 822-840. [Abstract] [Full Text]
6. Prasanta Kumar Dey, Arijit Bhattacharya, William Ho. 2014. Strategic supplier performance evaluation:
A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation. International Journal of Production
Economics . [CrossRef]
7. Hitoshi Hayami, Masao Nakamura, Alice O. Nakamura. 2014. Economic performance and supply chains:
The impact of upstream firms‫ ׳‬waste output on downstream firms‫ ׳‬performance in Japan. International
Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]
8. Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Carmen Medina-Lopez. 2014. An analysis of the direct and
mediated effects of employee commitment and supply chain integration on organisational performance.
International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]
9. Ming Juan Ding, Ferry Jie, Kevin A. Parton, Margaret J. Matanda. 2014. Relationships between quality
of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 25:1, 85-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Dr Per Olof Arnäs and Dr Mats Johansson, Jesús García-Arca, J. Carlos Prado-Prado, A. Trinidad
Gonzalez-Portela Garrido. 2014. “Packaging logistics”: promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:4, 325-346. [Abstract] [Full Text]
11. Samsul Islam, Tava Olsen. 2014. Truck-sharing challenges for hinterland trucking companies. Business
Process Management Journal 20:2, 290-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Carl Marcus Wallenburg, Thorsten Schäffler. 2014. The Interplay of Relational Governance and Formal
Control in Horizontal Alliances: A Social Contract Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50,
41-58. [CrossRef]
13. Helena Forslund. 2014. Exploring logistics performance management in supplier/retailer dyads.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42:3, 205-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Felix T.S. Chan, Ashutosh Nayak, Ratan Raj, Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Tiwari Manoj. 2014. An innovative
supply chain performance measurement system incorporating Research and Development (R&D) and
marketing policy. Computers & Industrial Engineering 69, 64-70. [CrossRef]
15. Roberto Cigolini, Margherita Pero, Tommaso Rossi, Andrea Sianesi. 2014. Linking supply chain
configuration to supply chain perfrmance: A discrete event simulation model. Simulation Modelling Practice
and Theory 40, 1-11. [CrossRef]
16. Sherwat Elwan Ibrahim, Ahmed Hanafi. 2013. Call center offshoring performance management. Strategic
Outsourcing: An International Journal 6:3, 292-312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Huseyin Ince, Salih Zeki Imamoglu, Halit Keskin, Aliekber Akgun, Mehmet Naci Efe. 2013. The
Impact of ERP Systems and Supply Chain Management Practices on Firm Performance: Case of Turkish
Companies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99, 1124-1133. [CrossRef]
18. Per J. Agrell, Adel Hatami-Marbini. 2013. Frontier-based performance analysis models for supply chain
management: State of the art and research directions. Computers & Industrial Engineering 66, 567-583.
19. Dileep More, Preetam Basu. 2013. Challenges of supply chain finance. Business Process Management Journal
19:4, 624-647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

20. Abirami Radhakrishnan, Dessa David, Douglas Hales, V. Sri Sridharan. 2013. Mapping the Critical
Links between Supply Chain Evaluation System and Supply Chain Integration Sustainability. International
Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences 2:10.4018/jsds.20110101, 44-65. [CrossRef]
21. Rafael Henrique Palma Lima, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2012. Analysis of the interplay between
knowledge and performance management in industrial clusters. Knowledge Management Research & Practice
10, 368-379. [CrossRef]
22. David Gallear, Abby Ghobadian, Weifeng Chen. 2012. Corporate responsibility, supply chain partnership
and performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Production Economics 140, 83-91.
23. Karen Ka-Leung Moon, Candace Ying Yi, E.W.T. Ngai. 2012. An instrument for measuring supply chain
flexibility for the textile and clothing companies. European Journal of Operational Research 222, 191-203.
24. Harri Lorentz, Juuso Töyli, Tomi Solakivi, Hanne‐Mari Hälinen, Lauri Ojala. 2012. Effects of geographic
dispersion on intra‐firm supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
17:6, 611-626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. A. Najmi, A. Makui. 2012. A conceptual model for measuring supply chain's performance. Production
Planning & Control 23, 694-706. [CrossRef]
26. Umit Bititci, Patrizia Garengo, Viktor Dörfler, Sai Nudurupati. 2012. Performance Measurement:
Challenges for Tomorrow*. International Journal of Management Reviews 14:10.1111/ijmr.2012.14.issue-3,
305-327. [CrossRef]
27. Pedro Sena Ferreira, A.H.M. Shamsuzzoha, Cesar Toscano, Pedro Cunha. 2012. Framework for
performance measurement and management in a collaborative business environment. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 61:6, 672-690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Paul Hong, David Dobrzykowski, Young Won Park, Hassan R. HassabElnaby, Woosang Hwang, Mark
A. Vonderembse. 2012. The impact of ERP implementation on organizational capabilities and firm
performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal 19:4/5, 618-633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Richard Wilding, Beverly Wagner, David M. Gligor, Mary C. Holcomb. 2012. Understanding the role
of logistics capabilities in achieving supply chain agility: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 17:4, 438-453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Richard Wilding, Beverly Wagner, Chee Wong, Heather Skipworth, Janet Godsell, Nemile Achimugu.
2012. Towards a theory of supply chain alignment enablers: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 17:4, 419-437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Stephen M. Rutner, Maria Aviles, Scott Cox. 2012. Logistics evolution: a comparison of military and
commercial logistics thought. The International Journal of Logistics Management 23:1, 96-118. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
32. Sara Liao‐Troth, Stephanie Thomas, Stanley E. Fawcett. 2012. Twenty years of IJLM: evolution in
research. The International Journal of Logistics Management 23:1, 4-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Prachi Pandey, Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya, Arshinder Kaur. 2012. Exploring the role of HR practices in
supply chain. Journal of Advances in Management Research 9:1, 113-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Parikshit Charan. 2012. Supply chain performance issues in an automobile company: a SAP‐LAP analysis.
Measuring Business Excellence 16:1, 67-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Helena Carvalho, Susana Garrido Azevedo, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. Agile and resilient approaches to
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

supply chain management: influence on performance and competitiveness. Logistics Research 4, 49-62.
36. Magnus Lindskog. 2012. Systems theory: myth or mainstream?. Logistics Research 4, 63-81. [CrossRef]
37. Assistant, Professor Federica Cucchiella, Professor Lenny Koh, Maria Björklund, Uni Martinsen,
Mats Abrahamsson. 2012. Performance measurements in the greening of supply chains. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 17:1, 29-39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Assadej Vanichchinchai. 2012. The relationship between employee involvement, partnership management
and supply performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:2, 157-172.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Gilberto Miller Devós Ganga, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2011. A fuzzy logic approach to supply chain
performance management. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 177-187. [CrossRef]
40. W.H. Ip, S.L. Chan, C.Y. Lam. 2011. Modeling supply chain performance and stability. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 111:8, 1332-1354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Richard Cuthbertson, Wojciech Piotrowicz. 2011. Performance measurement systems in supply chains.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 60:6, 583-602. [Abstract] [Full Text]
42. M. Adel El-Baz. 2011. Fuzzy performance measurement of a supply chain in manufacturing companies.
Expert Systems with Applications 38, 6681-6688. [CrossRef]
43. Helena Forslund. 2011. The size of a logistics performance measurement system. Facilities 29:3/4, 133-148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Sara Campo, Natalia Rubio, María Jesús Yagüe. 2010. Information Technology Use and Firm's Perceived
Performance in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 17, 336-364.
45. C. Clifford Defee, Theodore P. (Ted) Stank, Terry Esper. 2010. Performance implications of
transformational supply chain leadership and followership. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 40:10, 763-791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. William Y.C. Wang, H.K. Chan, David J. Pauleen. 2010. Aligning business process reengineering in
implementing global supply chain systems by the SCOR model. International Journal of Production Research
48, 5647-5669. [CrossRef]
47. Heriberto Garcia Reyes, Ronald Giachetti. 2010. Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in
Mexico. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15:6, 415-424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Dimitris Papakiriakopoulos, Katerina Pramatari. 2010. Collaborative performance measurement in supply
chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110:9, 1297-1318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Terry L. Esper, C. Clifford Defee, John T. Mentzer. 2010. A framework of supply chain orientation. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 21:2, 161-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. C. Clifford Defee, Brian S. Fugate. 2010. Changing perspective of capabilities in the dynamic supply chain
era. The International Journal of Logistics Management 21:2, 180-206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Fernando Bernardi de Souza, Sílvio R.I. Pires. 2010. Theory of constraints contributions to outbound
logistics. Management Research Review 33:7, 683-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Helena Forslund. 2010. ERP systems' capabilities for supply chain performance management. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 110:3, 351-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

53. José A. Faria, Eusébio Nunes, Manuel A. Matos. 2010. Cost and quality of service analysis of production
systems based on the cumulative downtime. International Journal of Production Research 48, 1653-1684.
54. Maurizio Canavari, Roberta Centonze, Martin Hingley, Roberta Spadoni. 2010. Traceability as part of
competitive strategy in the fruit supply chain. British Food Journal 112:2, 171-186. [Abstract] [Full Text]
PERFORMANCE. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 09, 35-52.
56. Aron Chibba, Jonas Rundquist. 2009. Effective Information Flow in the Internal Supply Chain: Results
from a Snowball Method to Map Information Flows. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management
08, 331-343. [CrossRef]
57. Rajat Bhagwat, Milind Kumar Sharma. 2009. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model for
performance measurement of supply chain management. Production Planning & Control 20, 678-690.
58. Murali Sambasivan, Tamizarasu Nandan, Zainal Abidin Mohamed. 2009. Consolidation of performance
measures in a supply chain environment. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22:6, 660-689.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Niall Piercy, Nigel Caldwell, Nick Rich. 2009. Considering connectivity in operations journals.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58:7, 607-631. [Abstract] [Full Text]
60. Daniel P. Jeschonowski, Julia Schmitz, Carl Marcus Wallenburg, Jürgen Weber. 2009. Management control
systems in logistics and supply chain management: a literature review. Logistics Research 1, 113-127.
61. Dr Hokey Min, Jitesh Thakkar, Arun Kanda, S.G. Deshmukh. 2009. Supply chain performance
measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises. Benchmarking: An International Journal
16:5, 702-723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Assadej Vanichchinchai, Barbara Igel. 2009. Total quality management and supply chain management:
similarities and differences. The TQM Journal 21:3, 249-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Pekka Koskinen. 2009. Supply chain strategy in a global paper manufacturing company: a case study.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 109:1, 34-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Helena Forslund, Patrik Jonsson. 2009. Obstacles to supply chain integration of the performance
management process in buyer‐supplier dyads. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
29:1, 77-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Ygal Bendavid, Élisabeth Lefebvre, Louis A. Lefebvre, Samuel Fosso-Wamba. 2009. Key performance
indicators for the evaluation of RFID-enabled B-to-B e-commerce applications: the case of a five-layer
supply chain. Information Systems and e-Business Management 7, 1-20. [CrossRef]
66. K.L. Choy, Harry K.H. Chow, K.H. Tan, Chi-Kin Chan, Esmond C.M. Mok, Q. Wang. 2008. Leveraging
the supply chain flexibility of third party logistics – Hybrid knowledge-based system approach. Expert
Systems with Applications 35, 1998-2016. [CrossRef]
67. Marianna Sigala. 2008. A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators
on sustainable tourism: the case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1589-1599. [CrossRef]
68. C.Y. Lam, S.L. Chan, W.H. Ip, C.W. Lau. 2008. Collaborative supply chain network using embedded
genetic algorithms. Industrial Management & Data Systems 108:8, 1101-1110. [Abstract] [Full Text]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

69. Christopher A. Boone, Christopher W. Craighead, Joe B. Hanna. 2008. Critical challenges of inventory
management in service parts supply: A Delphi study. Operations Management Research 1, 31-39. [CrossRef]
70. Parikshit Charan, Ravi Shankar, Rajat K. Baisya. 2008. Analysis of interactions among the variables of
supply chain performance measurement system implementation. Business Process Management Journal 14:4,
512-529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Nabil Mzoughi, Nedra Bahri, Mohamed Skander Ghachem. 2008. Impact of Supply Chain Management
and ERP on Organizational Performance and Competitive Advantage: Case of Tunisian Companies.
Journal of Global Information Technology Management 11, 24-46. [CrossRef]
72. Richard Cuthbertson, Wojciech Piotrowicz. 2008. Supply chain best practices – identification and
categorisation of measures and benefits. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
57:5, 389-404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Bülent Sezen. 2008. Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain
performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13:3, 233-240. [Abstract] [Full Text]
74. Stefan A. Seuring. 2008. Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 13:2, 128-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Sander De Leeuw, Loek Beekman. 2008. Supply chain-oriented performance measurement for automotive
spare parts. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 8, 56. [CrossRef]
76. Adisak Theeranuphattana, John C.S. Tang. 2007. A conceptual model of performance measurement for
supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19:1, 125-148. [Abstract] [Full Text]
77. Chang Won Lee, Ik‐Whan G. Kwon, Dennis Severance. 2007. Relationship between supply chain
performance and degree of linkage among supplier, internal integration, and customer. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 12:6, 444-452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Norman P. Archer, Jung Sik Jeong, Paul Hong. 2007. Customer orientation and performance outcomes in
supply chain management. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20:5, 578-594. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
79. Paolo Gaiardelli, Nicola Saccani, Lucrezia Songini. 2007. Performance measurement of the after-sales
service network—Evidence from the automotive industry. Computers in Industry 58, 698-708. [CrossRef]
80. Moti Frank, Ofer Zwikael, Michael Boasson. 2007. Jobs requiring a capacity for engineering systems
thinking (CEST): Selection using an interest inventory. Project Management Journal 38, 36-44. [CrossRef]
81. Mohsen M. D. Hassan. 2007. Engineering supply chains as systems. Systems Engineering 9:10.1002/
sys.v9:1, 73-89. [CrossRef]
82. Ron Masson, Laura Iosif, Grant MacKerron, June Fernie. 2007. Managing complexity in agile global
fashion industry supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management 18:2, 238-254. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
83. Helena Forslund, Patrik Jonsson. 2007. Dyadic integration of the performance management process.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:7, 546-567. [Abstract] [Full Text]
84. Angappa Gunasekaran, Bulent Kobu. 2007. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain
management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications. International Journal
of Production Research 45, 2819-2840. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

85. Juan José Alfaro Saiz, Angel Ortiz Bas, Raúl Rodríguez Rodríguez. 2007. Performance measurement system
for enterprise networks. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56:4, 305-334.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Samuel H. Huang, Harshal Keskar. 2007. Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection.
International Journal of Production Economics 105, 510-523. [CrossRef]
87. Suhong Li, Binshan Lin. 2006. Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain
management. Decision Support Systems 42, 1641-1656. [CrossRef]
88. Sharon J. Williams. 2006. Managing and developing suppliers: can SCM be adopted by SMES?.
International Journal of Production Research 44, 3831-3846. [CrossRef]
89. P. Folan, P. Higgins, J. Browne. 2006. A communications framework for extended enterprise performance
measurement. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19, 301-314. [CrossRef]
90. Jillian MacBryde, Zoe Radnor, Craig Shepherd, Hannes Günter. 2006. Measuring supply chain
performance: current research and future directions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 55:3/4, 242-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Suhong Li, Bhanu Ragu-Nathan, T.S. Ragu-Nathan, S. Subba Rao. 2006. The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega 34, 107-124.
92. Marco Busi, Umit S. Bititci. 2006. Collaborative performance management: present gaps and future
research. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55:1, 7-25. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
93. S S Dani, N D Burns, C J Backhouse. 2006. Developing a Methodology for Aligning Supply Chains
from a Relationships Perspective. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 220, 961-974. [CrossRef]
94. Amit Sachan, Subhash Datta. 2005. Review of supply chain management and logistics research.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35:9, 664-705. [Abstract] [Full Text]
95. P. Folan *, J. Browne. 2005. Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system.
Production Planning & Control 16, 531-544. [CrossRef]
96. Paul Folan, Jim Browne. 2005. A review of performance measurement: Towards performance management.
Computers in Industry 56, 663-680. [CrossRef]
97. C. Clifford Defee, Theodore P. Stank. 2005. Applying the strategy‐structure‐performance paradigm to
the supply chain environment. The International Journal of Logistics Management 16:1, 28-50. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
98. Carol J. Robinson, Manoj K. Malhotra. 2005. Defining the concept of supply chain quality management
and its relevance to academic and industrial practice. International Journal of Production Economics 96,
315-337. [CrossRef]
99. Kee-hung Lai, T.C.E. Cheng, A.C.L. Yeung. 2005. Relationship stability and supplier commitment to
quality. International Journal of Production Economics 96, 397-410. [CrossRef]
100. Kim Langfield-Smith, David Smith. 2005. Performance Measures in Supply Chains. Australian Accounting
Review 15:10.1111/auar.2005.15.issue-35, 39-51. [CrossRef]
101. Togar M. Simatupang, Ramaswami Sridharan. 2004. A benchmarking scheme for supply chain
collaboration. Benchmarking: An International Journal 11:1, 9-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Kee-Hung Lai, E.W.T Ngai, T.C.E Cheng. 2004. An empirical study of supply chain performance in
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)

transport logistics. International Journal of Production Economics 87, 321-331. [CrossRef]

103. Khalid Bichou, Richard Gray. 2004. A logistics and supply chain management approach to port
performance measurement. Maritime Policy & Management 31, 47-67. [CrossRef]
104. Felix T.S. Chan, H.J. Qi. 2003. An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 8:3, 209-223. [Abstract] [Full Text]
105. Felix T.S. Chan, H.J. Qi. 2003. Feasibility of performance measurement system for supply chain: a process‐
based approach and measures. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 14:3, 179-190. [Abstract] [Full Text]
106. Árni Halldórsson, Jesper Aastrup. 2003. Quality criteria for qualitative inquiries in logistics. European
Journal of Operational Research 144, 321-332. [CrossRef]
107. Kee-hung Lai, E.W.T Ngai, T.C.E Cheng. 2002. Measures for evaluating supply chain performance
in transport logistics. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 38, 439-456.
108. F. T. S. Chan, H. J. Qi. 2002. A fuzzy basis channel-spanning performance measurement method for supply
chain management. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 216, 1155-1167. [CrossRef]
109. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Information System within Enterprise Architecture and their Impact on
Business Performance 262-284. [CrossRef]
110. Dimitrios M. Emiris, Athanasios SkarlatosAn Analytical Model to Estimate the Optimum Production
Rate of Picking Processes in a Modular Warehouse Environment 188-211. [CrossRef]
111. Jian Zhou, Paul Folan, Harinder Jagdev, Jim BrowneThe Application of Fuzzy Performance Modelling
Procedures in Extended Enterprise Performance Measurement 170-201. [CrossRef]
112. Jan Strandhagen, Heidi C. Dreyer, Anita RomsdalControl Model for Intelligent and Demand-Driven
Supply Chains1 49-70. [CrossRef]
113. Jan Strandhagen, Heidi C. Dreyer, Anita RomsdalControl Model for Intelligent and Demand-Driven
Supply Chains1 262-283. [CrossRef]
114. Abirami Radhakrishnan, Dessa David, Douglas Hales, V. Sri SridharanMapping the Critical Links between
Supply Chain Evaluation System and Supply Chain Integration Sustainability 329-352. [CrossRef]
115. Roman Gumzej, Brigita GajšekIntroducing Quality of Service Criteria into Supply Chain Management for
Excellence 70-85. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 02:11 21 December 2014 (PT)