Supply Chain Management Concept and Definition

The International Journal of Logistics Management
Supply chain management: the elusive concept and definition

Steve LeMay, Marilyn M. Helms, Bob Kimball, Dave McMahon,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Steve LeMay, Marilyn M. Helms, Bob Kimball, Dave McMahon, (2017) "Supply chain management:
the elusive concept and definition", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 Issue:
4, pp.1425-1453, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0232
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0232
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 05:18 22 January 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 22 January 2019, At: 05:18 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 84 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2131 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1997),"Supply Chain Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics", The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 1-14 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805556">https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805556</a>
(2008),"A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new
theory", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.
38 Iss 5 pp. 360-387 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:273599 []
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 www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
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 preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm
Supply chain
Supply chain management: management
the elusive concept and definition
Steve LeMay
Department of Marketing and Economics, University of West Florida,
Pensacola, Florida, USA
1425
Marilyn M. Helms Received 17 October 2016
School of Business, Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA Revised 8 January 2017
10 April 2017
Bob Kimball Accepted 10 April 2017
Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of West Florida,
Pensacola, Florida, USA, and
Dave McMahon
Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine University,
Los Angeles, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to gather the current definitions of supply chain management in
practical and analytical usage, to develop standards for assessing definitions and to apply these standards to
the most readily available definitions of the term.
Design/methodology/approach – In this research, the authors gathered the current definitions of supply
chain management in practical and analytical usage from journals, textbooks, universities, and industry
associations and online.
Findings – The research ends with proposed definitions for consideration. Discussion and areas for future
research are included.
Research limitations/implications – Involved organizations, supply chain management programs in
higher education, and professional and certifying organizations in the field need to meet and work together to
research consensus on the final definition of the field, realizing that definitions can evolve, but also
recognizing that a starting point is needed in this rapidly growing area.
Practical implications – The authors argue, quite simply, that a consensus definition of supply chain
management is unlikely as long as we continue offering and accepting definitions that are technically
unsound. Many of the current definitions violate several principles of good definitions. For these reasons, they
are either empty, too restrictive, or too expansive. Until we come across or develop a definition that overcomes
these limitations and agree on it, then we will still search for “the” definition without finding it. The field will
become more crowded with definitions, but less certain, and progress will be restricted.
Originality/value – Theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners in a discipline require key terms in a field
to share a nominal definition and prefer to have a shared real or essential definition. Yet in supply chain
management, we find no such shared definition, real or nominal. Even the Council of Supply Chain
Management Professional offers its definition with the caveat: “The supply chain management (SCM)
profession has continued to change and evolve to fit the needs of the growing global supply chain. With the
supply chain covering a broad range of disciplines, the definition of what is a supply chain can be unclear”
(CSCMP, 2016).
Keywords Supply chain management, Definition, Shared, Essential definition, Key term, Nominal
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
When theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners in a discipline gather to discuss a shared
topic, they expect, quite reasonably, to share a common language. They expect key terms to
The International Journal of
have at least a shared nominal definition and prefer to have a shared real or formal Logistics Management
definition. Yet in the field we call “supply chain management (SCM),” we find no such shared Vol. 28 No. 4, 2017
pp. 1425-1453
definition, nominal, real, or formal. Even the Council of Supply Chain Management © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
Professionals (CSCMP) offers its definition with the caveat: “The supply chain management DOI 10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0232
IJLM (SCM) profession has continued to change and evolve to fit the needs of the growing global
28,4 supply chain. With the supply chain covering a broad range of disciplines, the definition of
what is a supply chain can be unclear” (CSCMP, 2016). The purpose of this research is to
gather the current definitions of SCM in practical and analytical usage, to develop standards
for assessing definitions and to apply these standards to the most readily available
definitions of the term.
1426 Does the lack of a clear, common definition matter? Key researchers have thought so.
For example, in 2008, the late Dr Don Bowersox dressed down an audience of academics at a
conference in Pensacola, FL, for failing to come together on a common understanding of the
field. He was preceded on the stage by another academician who closed his part of the
program with “[…] logistics, supply chain management, or whatever this is we’re talking
about,” or words to that effect. Instead of his planned talk, Bowersox delivered a strong
message, summed up as this:” If you, as the academic leaders of this field, don’t know what
you’re talking about, how is anyone else supposed to know?” We sent this summary to
several attendees at that conference and all agreed with it (Keller, 2016).
Other researchers have made the same argument in the process of discussing SCM
definitions or developing definitions of their own (Larson and Rogers, 1998; Ellram and
Cooper, 2014; Skjoett-Larsen and Bagchi, 2005; Lambert et al., 1998; Rossetti and Dooley,
2010). In this analysis, we accept the notion that a consensus definition of SCM is necessary,
that we at least need a systematic approach to defining the term for each circumstance.
But rather than speculate on what the definition is or should be, we analyze definitions
already offered from a quasi-technical perspective, adapted from philosophy, linguistics,
and lexicography. In this approach, we assume a stance advocated by the semanticist,
S.I. Hayakawa (1941): we are taking a scientific approach to the language of the definitions.
We argue, quite simply, that a consensus definition of SCM is unlikely as long as we
continue offering and accepting definitions that are technically unsound. Many of the
current definitions violate several principles of good definitions. For these reasons, they are
either empty, too restrictive, or too expansive. Until we come across or develop a definition
that overcomes these limitations and agree on it, we will still search for “the” definition
without finding it. The field will become more crowded with definitions, but less certain, and
progress will be restricted.
We structure our analysis around four positions.
Many readily available definitions of SCM:
(1) are tautologies, or partially tautological; and
(2) go beyond the fundamental concept of definition, restricting SCM in ways that
inhibit theoretical development in the field.
A consensus definition of SCM:
(1) is unlikely until the technical problems of the definitions are eliminated or
minimized; and
(2) will emerge over time, once we begin to focus on the language of definitions and
allow theory and practice to develop.
This research and analysis contributes to the literature by bringing to the analysis of SCM
definitions another quantitative approach, one similar to that of Rossetti and Dooley (2010),
but aimed at the definitions themselves rather than how a definition might emerge from the
practice of writing online advertisements for supply chain jobs. This research also
contributes by bringing to the analysis of definitions a scientific approach to the definitions
themselves. This scientific approach to language engages the thinking of Hayakawa (1941),
Korzybski (1958), Ajdukiewicz (1960), and Robinson (1950). This analysis also contributes
by advancing the field toward a consensus definition, although our purpose is not just to Supply chain
create such a definition, but rather to establish criteria by which to measure the quality of management
the definitions that emerge.
The scope of this research focuses on readily available definitions of SCM from a variety of
sources including textbooks, online dictionaries, major industry associations, major universities,
and supply chain-related academic journals. It does not consider every definition of SCM, but
does examine those that are most easily found. This research also examines the relationship 1427
between definitions of supply chain and definitions of SCM. These definitions are not as closely
related as they might appear, even when drawn from the same source. Our contributions offer a
new definition of SCM that is based on standards outlined in the research.
Literature review
We do not intend this research to be a comprehensive literature review of the attempts to
define SCM. That has been done recently and well (Ellram and Cooper, 2014). Rather, we
intend to outline the previous work on definitions of the SCM literature that has attempted
to advance the field toward that consensus definition. We have linked our work on
definitions to recent theoretical findings in the field of SCM. Following the theory review, we
then reviewed the literature on definitions and their analysis to establish a set of criteria for
evaluation. The criteria that we developed in this review have not previously been used to
evaluate definitions in this field. We know this because most of these definitions cannot
meet the standards these criteria set.
Supply chain theory and definitions

The relationship between theory and definition is complex. How does one develop a theory of
something that has not been defined? By the same token, how does one develop a definition
without implying something about an underlying theory? In the case of SCM, the term came
first (Oliver and Webber, 1982) followed by the application of the term and by further
development of definitions. For most of these definitions, there was no underlying theory
because no theory had been developed. SCM was treated in the sense as art: “I may not know
art, but I know it when I see it.”
We begin with three works on the development of theory in SCM. First, Carter et al.
(2015) addressed the concept of “supply chain,” arguing that the theory of what is being
managed should take precedence over the broader concept of SCM. They used a conceptual
theory building approach to identify six foundational premises about the structure and
boundary of the supply chain.
These premises are:
(1) the supply chain is a network, consisting of nodes and links;
(2) the supply chain as a network operates as a complex adaptive system, where every
agent grapples with the tension between control and emergence;
(3) the supply chain is relative to a particular product and agent;
(4) the supply chain consists of both a physical supply chain and a support supply chain;
(5) the supply chain is bounded by the visible horizon of the focal agent; and
(6) the visible horizon of the focal agent is subject to attenuation, where distance is
based on factors including physical distance, cultural distance, and closeness
centrality (Carter et al., 2015).
These premises suggest a direction for developing both a theory and a definition of supply
chain. However, they do not offer a specific definition. They do identify some limitations of
IJLM their work and call for additional theory development focusing on refining and extending
28,4 their conceptualization. They point out that their views may omit the concept of service
supply chains and the consumer or customer is left out of the process. Their definition
allows for extending the supply chain beyond the visible, fuzzy horizon to “nexus suppliers”
(Carter et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2015). Also, excluded from this analysis is the human factor;
people play an important role in the supply chain, and the acquisition of talent is becoming
1428 more crucial in the system, but so far acquiring the services of people with the right
knowledge, skills, and abilities has been left to human resources and outside the realm of
supply chain theory.
Work by Carter et al. (2015) is useful in the context of the current analysis.
The bifurcation of the definition is an important one, one that we will take up in
greater detail later in this work as we develop our proposed definition of SCM. We see the
need for analyzing and conceptualizing the management term in theory and in definition.
While full theory development is beyond the scope of this work, the definition of
management in a supply chain context is not. Management has more than one meaning, and
the difference between management as “control” and management as “administration” or
“command,” or “coordination,” all of which have been conceptualized as part of the
discipline (see Henri Fayol, 1917).
Many of these same terms have been used in definitions of SCM: little attention has been
paid to the differences between the terms and how they might influence what is and what is
not a supply chain, and what is and what is not a “managed supply chain.” We see this
distinction as inherent in the conceptualization offered by Carter et al. (2015) and will discuss
it further in another section.
The second theoretical article is an often-referenced work by Chen and Paulraj (2004).
They point out that the concept of SCM has arisen from many disciplines including not only
the core fields of purchasing, logistics, and operations, but also industry-specific studies,
management information systems, organizational theory, and strategic management,
among others. In some senses, the term “supply chain” won out over competing terms like
“value stream” and “demand pipeline.” In this context, it is little wonder that a consensus
definition has eluded the area of study so far.
Chen and Paulraj (2004) concentrate their analysis on the measurement of constructs
related to SCM. They sought measures for the key constructs related to the concept of SCM
from a multidisciplinary perspective. Their work incorporated more than 400 articles from
multiple publications. They relied on the Supply Chain Council’s definition of the supply
chain: “a supply chain encompasses every effort involved in producing and delivering a
final product from the supplier’s supplier to the customer’s customer” (Chen and Paulraj,
2004, pp. 120-122). We analyze this definition later in this work.
This approach to SCM theory has many merits. It focuses on measuring the constructs
associated with SCM, so it validates constructs empirically. The initial model adopted in the
work is a simple, linear model that shows both an internal supply chain along with external
suppliers and customers. This model and many others like it are based on physical supply
chains and for-profit businesses. They tend to preclude what have become common
extensions of the SCM concept, extensions to services and to not-for-profit organizations.
While the discussions of the concept are far more complex than this model
suggests, the model itself suggests a more limited definition of SCM to include what we
would term material supply chains – supply chains for physical goods – and business
supply chains, not humanitarian supply chains or other not-for-profit supply chains.
The measurement-construct model used by Chen and Paulraj (2004) was a major
contribution to SCM theory development, but they acknowledged that more needs to be
done with substantive development of the theory. We would argue that steps toward a
consensus definition contribute to that development.
The third article in this brief overview of SCM theory is Ellram and Cooper (2014), a work Supply chain
that deals directly with definitions as well as with the conceptualization of SCM. They point management
out that SCM has been identified as a process, a discipline, a philosophy, a governance
structure, and a function. It should be noted that definitions based on these identifications
are not mutually exclusive. A discipline, for example, can be based on a process and a
governance structure can certainly oversee a process. But this and other articles on SCM
theory seem to support the idea that SCM is multidisciplinary in its origins. That does not 1429
mean that it cannot become a discipline in its own right; but so far it appears this has not
done. If biology and chemistry can yield biochemistry, then purchasing, operations, and
logistics can yield SCM or something similar. Nonetheless, Ellram and Cooper (2014) found
that SCM is treated as a subcategory by each of its primary founding disciplines. This is in
keeping with earlier findings on the same point (Charvet et al., 2008; Chicksand et al., 2012).
In their analysis, Ellram and Cooper (2014) discuss the governance structure in a way
that seems to have the most potent implications for developing a consensus definition of
SCM, primarily because it is about management. However, each of these five identities could
offer a foundation for a definition, and those definitions need not be contradictory. Rather,
they could be developed simultaneously into a structured view of the field that offers a
framework for research. However, the governance structure identity is grounded in
economic and relational theory (Ellram and Cooper, 2014), so it needs special attention in
developing a definition. It also encompasses the boundary spanning nature of SCM.
Ellram and Cooper (2014) also make the case for the idea that the Mentzer et al. (2001)
definition of “supply chain” is now well-established. That definition is: “a set of three or
more entities (organizations or individuals) directly involved in the upstream and
downstream flows of products, services, finances, and/or information from a source to a
customer (and return)” (Mentzer et al., 2001, p. 4). If this definition was widely accepted, then
defining SCM would be simple. Theorists could simply tease out which specific meaning
of “management” as “administering,” “overseeing,” “governing,” “commanding,” or
“coordinating,” as examples, and apply the one that best fits this definition of “supply
chain.” A literature and internet search for “supply chain” both produce many definitions of
that do not match Mentzer et al. (2001). (See Table I for examples.) Not only that, but many
references show a definition for “supply chain” that does not match the words in the
corresponding part of the definition of “SCM.” While this paper focuses on the definitions of
SCM, it also looks at definitions of “supply chain” because of the disconcerting nature of this
departure from a certain logic.
This brief overview of SCM theory is intended to inform a textual analysis of the
definitions of SCM. It raises questions about the nature and boundaries of supply chain and
raises questions about what it means to manage a supply chain. It also suggests a brief
analysis of what a SCM is not would help to frame the analysis and prepare the way for
offering a more precise definition.
Defining supply chain and defining management

While the focus of this research is on the definition of SCM, we must also consider the
definitions of its component parts. In this section, we first examine the relationship between
the definitions of “supply chain” and the definitions of “SCM.” As shown in Table I, these
definitions are not necessarily related, even when drawn from the same source. It might seem
that a definition of SCM would use some term as a substitute for management and then apply
that chosen term to the existing definition of supply chain. However, that not the case in this
admittedly limited review of sources that defined both. This is an issue we address further in
our call for additional research. That is, a complete analysis at this point is beyond the scope of
this research. The relationship between “supply chain” and “management” needs further
examination. What we offer is an important first step in that examination.
28,4
IJLM
1430
Table I.
Contrasts of
chain and supply

chain management
definitions of supply
Web source URL Supply chain Supply chain management
WhatIs.com http://whatis.techtarget.com/
The network of all the individuals, organizations, The oversight of materials, information, and finances
definition/supply-chain resources, activities and technology involved in the as they move in a process from supplier to
creation and sale of a product, from the delivery of manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer
source materials from the supplier to the manufacturer,
through to its eventual delivery to the end user
Investopedia.com www.investopedia.com/terms/s/ Network between a company and its suppliers to The active streamlining of a business’ supply-side
supplychain.asp produce and distribute a specific product; the steps it activities to maximize customer value and gain a
takes to get the product or service to the customer competitive advantage in the marketplace
Businessdictionary. www.businessdictionary.com/ Entire network of entities, directly or indirectly Management of material and information flow in a
com definition/supply-chain.html interlinked and interdependent in serving the same supply chain to provide the highest degree of customer
consumer or customer. It comprises of vendors that satisfaction at the lowest possible cost
supply raw material, producers who convert the
material into products, warehouses that store,
distribution centers that deliver to the retailers, and
retailers who bring the product to the ultimate user
Canadian Supply www.supplychaincanada.org/en/ Encompass the following three functions: supply of The planning and management of all activities
Chain Sector supply-chain materials to a manufacturer; the manufacturing involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion, and
Council process; and, iii. the distribution of finished goods all logistics management activities. Importantly, it also
through a network of distributors and retailers to a includes coordination and collaboration with channel
final customer partners, which can be suppliers, intermediaries, third-
party service providers, and customers. In essence,
supply chain management integrates supply and
demand management within and across companies
CSCMP et al. (2013) www.informit.com/articles/ A series of integrated enterprises that must share The definitions of supply chain management in this
article.aspx?p=2166717& information and coordinate physical execution to source are unrelated to the definitions of “supply
seqNum=2 ensure a smooth, integrated flow of goods, services, chain” in this source; they are analyzed in the body of
information, and cash through the pipeline. SCM definitions
(Coyle et al., 2013)
The network of organizations that are involved,
through upstream and downstream linkages, in the
different processes and activities that produce value in
the form of products and services delivered to the
ultimate consumer. (Martin, 1992)
(continued )
Web source URL Supply chain Supply chain management
The material and informational interchanges in the

logistical process, stretching from acquisition of raw
materials to delivery of finished products to the end
user. All vendors, service providers, and customers are
links in the supply chain. (CSCMP, 2013)
Council of Supply CSCMP Glossary: https://cscmp. Supply chain: starting with unprocessed raw materials Encompasses the planning and management of all
Chain Management org/imis0/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_ and ending with the final customer using the finished activities involved in sourcing and procurement,
Definitions_and_Glossary_of_ goods, the supply chain links many companies conversion, and all logistics management activities.
Terms together; the material and informational interchanges Importantly, it also includes coordination and
in the logistical process stretching from acquisition of collaboration with channel partners, which can be
raw materials to delivery of finished products to the suppliers, intermediaries, third-party service providers,
end user. All vendors, service providers and customers and customers. In essence, supply chain management
are links in the supply chain integrates supply and demand management within
and across companies. Supply chain management is an
integrating function with primary responsibility for
linking major business functions and business
processes within and across companies into a cohesive
and high-performing business model. It includes all of
the logistics management activities noted above, as
well as manufacturing operations, and it drives
coordination of processes and activities with and
across marketing, sales, product design, finance and
information technology
1431
management
Supply chain
Table I.
IJLM The term management itself can mean many things: whether you mean management in
28,4 terms of “command” or in terms of “was able to” (i.e. he managed to escape). Management
can be control, oversight, administration, supervision, or a class of people (management vs
labor, for example). Consequently, it is important in defining SCM to understand what is
meant by the term. The difference between management-as-control and management-as-
administration, for example, can be an important one. Both Tables I and II show multiple
1432 examples of differing substitute terms or synonyms for management.
Defining SCM
Scholars have attempted to find the consensus definition of SCM (Ellram and Cooper, 2014;
Mentzer et al., 2001; Rossetti and Dooley, 2010; Gibson et al., 2005; Lummus et al., 2001; Larson
and Rogers, 1998; Cooper and Ellram, 1993). Many of these attempts took multiple perspectives
on SCM. For example, Skjoett-Larsen (1999) briefly examined the issue of definitions in the
context of developing three approaches to supply chain theory. He examined the impact of
taking network, transaction cost, or resource-based views of SCM, but in the process considered
definitions by Cooper and Ellram (1993), Cooper et al. (1997) and Christopher (1998) (see Table II
for the full texts of these definitions). For their analysis, they adopted Christopher’s definition
because it “focuses on the management of relationships and has a holistic view of the supply
chain” (Skjoett-Larson, 1999, p. 42). The key point is the selection among several choices.
Larson and Rogers (1998) cite definitions from Kranz (1996), Stein and Voehl (1998),
Lambert et al. (1998), Quinn (1997), Copacino (1997), and Johnson and Wood (1996). After
reviewing these and other definitions, they developed their own: “supply chain management
is the coordination of activities, within and between vertically linked firms, for the purpose
of serving end customers at a profit” (Larson and Rogers, 1998, p. 2). Lummus et al. (2001)
examined the relationship between the terms “logistics” and “SCM,” while also
distinguishing between definitions of “supply chain” and “SCM.” Their research also
included asking managers in retailing, manufacturing, and third-party logistics
firms, how they would define these terms, as well as how they would define “logistics”
(Lummus et al., 2001). These definitions were not included in our analysis because they are
only cited in the Lummus et al.’s research. Their notion that “logistics” and “SCM” were
different concepts is in keeping with earlier work by Lambert et al. (1997).
Gibson et al. (2005) surveyed the membership of the CSCMP, offering two alternative
definitions of SCM. One of those definitions was eventually adopted as the “official”
definition for the organization. It can be found in Table II. Rossetti and Dooley (2010) used
job descriptions in online postings to elicit the de-facto definitions used by human resources
departments in their search for supply chain employees. Rossetti and Dooley (2010)
identified clusters and compared texts, ultimately concluding that SCM “include(s) a more
diverse set of responsibilities than Sourcing, Operations, and Logistics” (p. 51).
The researchers also argue that the lack of a clear definition of SCM restricts knowledge
accumulation because the boundaries of the field are unstable. Without stable boundaries,
“researchers would not know what questions to address and educators would not know
what knowledge to put into textbooks” (p. 55). Their study would expect practice and
academia to differ on definitions, but suggest that academics need to pay close attention to
practice if they are to remain close to industry (Rossetti and Dooley, 2010).
Zacharia et al. (2014) drew from an even broader range of sources for definitions
including journal editors, industry thought leaders, and academics, to examine the degree to
which SCM has become “siloed” and the definitions fractured, fractured along with the
discipline itself. They, along with others, argue that SCM is not yet a discipline in the sense
of Popper (1959) or Kuhn (1970), since it still lacks a common theoretical foundation
(Zacharia et al., 2014). Ellram and Cooper (2014) suggest the field is moving toward the
status of a discipline. In addition to classifying a broad range of SCM literature into one or
Source Definition Definition revised for corpus
Supply chain
management
Textbook definitions
1. Lambert (2008) The integration of key business processes Integration business processes end user
from end user through original suppliers through original suppliers provides
that provides products, services, and products, services, information add value
information that add value for customers customers
and other stakeholders 1433
2. Coyle et al. (2013) The art and science of integrating the Art science integrating flows products
flows of products, information, and Information
financials through the entire supply Financials
pipeline from the vendor’s vendor to the Entire
customer’s customer Pipeline
Vendor
Customer
3. Christopher (1998) The management of upstream and Management upstream downstream
downstream relationships with suppliers relationships suppliers customers deliver

and customers to deliver superior superior customer value less cost supply
customer value at less cost to the supply chain whole
chain as a whole
4. Copacino (1997) The art of managing the flow of materials Art managing flow materials products
and products from source user
source to user
5. Lummus and Alber The network of entities through which Network entities material flows. Entities
(1997) material flows. Those entities may include suppliers, carriers, manufacturing
include suppliers, carriers, manufacturing sites, distribution centers, retailers,
sites, distribution centers, retailers, and customers
customers
6. Jespersen and The integration of business processes Integration business processes end user
Skjott-Larsen (2005) from end user through original suppliers original suppliers provides products,
that provides products, services, and services, information value customers
information that add value for customers
7. Chopra and All parties involved, directly or indirectly, Parties involved, directly indirectly,
Meindl (2007) in fulfilling a customer request. The fulfilling customer request. Supply chain
supply chain not only includes the not only includes manufacturer suppliers,
manufacturer and suppliers, but also transporters, warehouses, retailers,
transporters, warehouses, retailers, and customers themselves. Organization,
customers themselves. Within each manufacturer, supply chain includes
organization, such as a manufacturer, the functions involved receiving filling
supply chain includes all functions customer request. Functions include, not
involved in receiving and filling a limited, new product development,
customer request. These functions marketing, operations, distribution,
include, but are not limited to, new finance, customer service
product development, marketing,
operations, distribution, finance, and
customer service
8. Mentzer (2001) A company, an immediate supplier, and Company, immediate supplier, immediate
an immediate customer directly linked by customer directly linked one more
one or more of the upstream and upstream downstream flow products,
downstream flow of products, services, services, finances, information. Ultimate
finances, and information. An ultimate supply chain includes companies
supply chain includes all the companies involved upstream downstream flow
involved in all the upstream and products, services, finances, information
downstream flow of products, services, initial supplier ultimate customer
finances, and information from the initial Table II.
supplier to the ultimate customer Supply chain
management
definitions for
(continued ) analysis
IJLM Source Definition Definition revised for corpus
28,4
9. Simchi-Levi et al. A set of approaches utilized to efficiently Set approaches utilized efficiently
(2008) integrate suppliers, manufacturers, integrate suppliers, manufacturers,
warehouses, and stores, so that warehouses, stores, merchandise
merchandise is produced and distributed produced distributed right quantities,
at the right quantities, to the right right locations, right time, order minimize
1434 locations, and at the right time, in order to system wide costs satisfying service level
minimize system wide costs while requirements
satisfying service level requirements
Academic literature
10. Quinn (1997) All of those activities associated with Activities associated moving goods raw
moving goods from the raw materials stage materials stage end user
through to the end user
11. LaLonde (1996) The delivery of enhanced customer and Delivery enhanced customer economic
economic value through synchronized value synchronized management flow

management of the flow of physical physical goods associated information
goods and associated information from sourcing consumption
sourcing to consumption
12. Cooper et al. (1997) The integration of key business processes Integration business processes end user
from end user through original suppliers original suppliers provides products,
that provide products, services, and services information add value customers
information that add value for customers
and other stakeholders
13. Larson and Rogers The coordination of activities, within and Coordination activities, vertically linked
(1998) between vertically linked firms, for the firms, purpose serving end customers
purpose of serving end customers at a profit profit
14. Cooper and Ellram An integrative philosophy to manage the Integrative philosophy manage total flow
(1993) total flow of a distribution channel from distribution channel supplier ultimate
the supplier to the ultimate user user
15. Lummus et al. All the activities involved in delivering a Activities involved delivering product
(2001) product from raw material through to the raw material customer, including
customer, including sourcing raw sourcing raw materials parts,
materials and parts, manufacturing and manufacturing assembly, warehousing
assembly, warehousing and inventory inventory tracking, order entry order
tracking, order entry and order management, distribution across
management, distribution across all channels, delivery customer, information
channels, delivery to the customer, and systems necessary monitor activities
the information systems necessary to
monitor all of these activities
16. CSX World The management and control of all Management control materials
Terminals (2004) materials and information in the logistics information logistics process acquisition
process from acquisition of raw materials raw materials delivery end user
to delivery to end user
17. Gibson et al. (2005) The planning and management of all Planning management all activities
activities involved in sourcing and involved sourcing procurement,
procurement, conversion, and all Logistics conversion, Logistics Management
Management activities. Importantly, it activities. Importantly, also includes
also includes coordination and coordination collaboration channel
collaboration with channel partners, which partners, suppliers, intermediaries, third-
can be suppliers, intermediaries, third- party serviced providers, customers.
party serviced providers, and customers. Essence, supply chain management
In essence, supply chain management integrates supply demand management
integrates supply and demand within across companies
management within and across companies
Table II. (continued )

Supply chain
management
18. Mentzer et al. The systematic, strategic coordination Systematic, strategic coordination
(2001) of the traditional business functions traditional business functions particular
within a particular company and company across businesses supply chain
across businesses within the supply purposes improving long-term
chain, for the purposes of improving performance individual companies
the long-term performance of the supply chain whole 1435
individual companies and the supply
chain as a whole
19. Anderson et al. Organizations involved in management Organizations involved management
(1997) of the flow of products, services, flow products, services, information.
and information. The supply chain Supply chain includes links involved
includes all the links involved in managing flow products, services,
managing the flow of products, information supplier’s suppliers
services, and information from customer’s customers

their supplier’s suppliers to their
customer’s customers
20. Harland (1996) The management of a network of Management network interconnected
interconnected businesses involved in the businesses involved ultimate provision
ultimate provision of product and service product service packages required end
packages required by end customers customers
21. Stock and Boyer The management of a network of Management network relationships firm
(2009) relationships within a firm and between interdependent organizations business
interdependent organizations and units consisting material suppliers,
business units consisting of material purchasing, production facilities,
suppliers, purchasing, production logistics, marketing, related systems
facilities, logistics, marketing, and facilitate forward reverse flow materials,
related systems that facilitate the forward services, finances information original
and reverse flow of materials, services, producer final customer benefits adding
finances and information from the value, maximizing profitability through
original producer to final customer efficiencies, achieving customer
with the benefits of adding value, satisfaction
maximizing profitability through
efficiencies, and achieving
customer satisfaction
Online dictionaries and encyclopedias
22. Supply Chain The management of the flow of Management flow goods. Includes
Management (n.d.b) goods. It includes the movement and movement storage raw materials, work-
storage of raw materials, work-in-process in-process inventory, finished goods
inventory, and finished goods from point origin point consumption
point of origin to point of
consumption
23. Supply Chain The active streamlining of a business’ Active streamlining business’ supply-side
Management (SCM) supply-side activities to maximize activities maximize customer value gain
(2003) customer value and to gain a competitive competitive advantage marketplace
advantage in the marketplace
24. Rouse (n.d.) The oversight of materials, information, Oversight materials, information,
and finances as they move in a process finances move process supplier
from supplier to manufacturer to manufacturer wholesaler retailer
wholesaler to retailer to consumer consumer
25. Supply Chain Management of material and information Management material information flow
Management (2016b) flow in a supply chain to provide the supply chain provide highest degree
highest degree of customer satisfaction at customer satisfaction lowest possible cost
the lowest possible cost
(continued ) Table II.

IJLM Source Definition Definition revised for corpus
28,4
26. Wailgum (2007) The combination of art and science that Combination art science goes improving
goes into improving the way your way company finds raw components needs
company finds the raw components it make product service deliver customers
needs to make a product or service and
deliver it to customers
1436 27. Taras and Taras The movement of materials as they flow Movement materials flow source end
(n.d.) from their source to the end customer. customer. Supply chain includes
Supply chain includes purchasing, purchasing, manufacturing,
manufacturing, warehousing, warehousing, transportation, customer
transportation, customer service, demand service, demand planning, supply
planning, supply planning and supply planning supply chain management.
chain management. It is made up of the Made up people, activities, information
people, activities, information and resources involved moving product
resources involved in moving a product supplier customer

from its supplier to customer
28. Supply Chain Control of the supply chain as a process Control supply chain process supplier
Management from supplier to manufacturer to manufacturer wholesaler retailer
(n.d.a) wholesaler to retailer to consumer consumer
Universities and associations
29. Handfield (2011) The active management of supply chain Active management supply chain
activities to maximize customer value activities maximize customer value
and achieve a sustainable competitive achieve sustainable competitive
advantage advantage
30. Cox et al. (1992) The processes from the initial raw Processes from initial raw materials
materials to the ultimate consumption of ultimate consumption finished product
the finished product linking across linking across supplier-user companies;
supplier-user companies; and the functions functions company enable value chain
within and outside a company that enable make products provide services customer
the value chain to make products and
provide services to the customer
31. CSCMP (2016) The planning and management of all Planning management activities involved
activities involved in sourcing and sourcing procurement, conversion,
procurement, conversion, and all logistics logistics management activities including
management activities including coordination collaboration channel
coordination and collaboration with partners, suppliers, intermediaries, third-
channel partners, which can be suppliers, party service providers, customers
intermediaries, third-party service
providers, and customers
32. CSCMP (2016) An integrating function with primary Integrating function primary
responsibility for linking major business responsibility linking major business
functions and business processes within functions business processes companies
and across companies into a cohesive and cohesive high-performing business
high-performing business model. It includes model. Includes logistics management
all of the logistics management activities activities noted above, manufacturing
noted above, as well as manufacturing operations, drives coordination processes
operations, and it drives coordination of activities across marketing, sales, product
processes and activities with and across design, finance, information technology
marketing, sales, product design, finance,
and information technology
33. CIPS Knowledge The management of all activities aimed at Management activities aimed satisfying
Team (2013) satisfying the end consumer; as such it end consumer; covers almost activity
covers almost all activity within the organization
organization
Table II. (continued )

Supply chain
management
34. CIPS Knowledge The selection and linking of suppliers and Selection linking suppliers customers
Team (2013) customers through negotiation and negotiation agreement achieve customer
agreement to achieve customer satisfaction providing value-added
satisfaction by providing value-added products services beneficial profitable
products and services within beneficial relationships parties supply chain
and profitable relationships of all parties 1437
within the supply chain
35. Supply Chain The design and management of seamless, Design management seamless, value-
Management(2016a) value-added process across added process across organizational
organizational boundaries to meet the boundaries meet real needs end customer
real needs of the end customer needs of needs customer
the end customer
36. Klapper et al. The management of all processes or Management of all processes or functions
(1999) functions to satisfy a customer’s orders to satisfy a customer’s orders

37. CIPS Knowledge The continuous planning, developing, Continuous planning, developing,
Team (2013) controlling, informing and monitoring of controlling, informing monitoring actions
actions within and between supply chain supply chain links integrated supply
links so that an integrated supply process process results which meets overall
results which meets overall strategic strategic goals
goals
38. Cavinato (2010) The identification, acquisition, access, Identification acquisition access
positioning, management of resources positioning management resources
and related capabilities the organization related capabilities organization need
needs in the attainment of its strategic attainment strategic objectives
objectives
39. Supply Chain The design and management of seamless, Design management seamless value-
Management (2016a) value-added processes across added processes organizational
organizational boundaries to meet the boundaries meet real needs end customer
real needs of the end customer
40. Michigan State An integrated approach to planning, Integrated approach planning,
University (2014) implementing and controlling the flow of implementing controlling flow
information, materials and services from information, materials services raw
raw material and component suppliers material component suppliers
through the manufacturing of the manufacturing finished product ultimate
finished product for ultimate distribution distribution end customer
to the end customer
41. http://mays.tamu. Includes all the activities that must take Activities, right product, right
edu/department-of- place to get the right product into the consumer’s hands, right quantity, right
information-and- right consumer’s hands in the right time, raw materials, extraction to
operations- quantity and at the right time – from raw consumer purchase
management/what-is- materials extraction to consumer
supply-chain- purchase
management/ Table II.
more of five perspectives discussed earlier, they argue that there is a consensus definition of
a supply chain, referencing the definition offered by Mentzer et al. (2001). If that is indeed
such a consensus definition, it is puzzling that it has not been combined with a common
definition of management to reach a final definition of SCM, and that is clearly not the case.
Although it is equally clear the literature attempts to distinguish between a supply chain
and a managed supply chain, the distinction remains unclear. It should be noted that the
Wikipedia article on “SCM” has a complex discussion of the difficulty of defining the term,
longer but in the same vein as the discussion on the CSCMP website. Ellram and Cooper’s
(2014) overview of definitions is probably the most comprehensive analysis of definitions in
the academic context to date.
IJLM A clear theme throughout this literature is an understandable search for consensus, but at
28,4 no point has any significant effort evaluated the definitions as definitions, that is discarding
those that fail to meet the straightforward standards of normal definitions. These standards
are outlined in the next section of the literature review. So far, in the words of the semanticist
S.I. Hayakawa (1941), we have taken an “unscientific attitude towards language itself” (p. 9).
1438 The composition of definitions

The word “definition” itself comes from the Latin word “definire,” meaning “to limit” or “to
set limits or boundaries,” which is precisely the task we seek to accomplish when searching
for a consensus definition. We first want to know “what is a supply chain?” and then the
difference between a supply chain and a supply chain that is managed. What are
the boundaries for these two and how should they be determined?
Definitions come in a wide variety of types and forms, such as lexical, real, formal,
nominal, enumerative, operational, tautological, reduction, and circular (Reber et al., 2009).
Some of these types clearly do not fit the needs of a potential discipline or developing field
like SCM. A strictly lexical or dictionary definition will not support theory development
because that type is too simplistic. An enumerative definition includes an exhaustive list of
all the things that fit the definition, and we are unlikely to be able to list every possible
managed supply chain in the world. Reduction sentences are unlikely to be suitable because
they draw limits on an already defined scale: a person is defined as anxious only if he or she
scores in the top 10 percent on the scale that measures anxiety, for example. Tautological
and circular definitions are “distinctly unsatisfactory” (Reber et al., 2009, p. 1).
This leaves three types of definitions as possible approaches to defining SCM effectively:
operational, real, and formal. Operational definitions are based on the set of actions that
produced the thing to be defined, as in “hunger is a state of affairs resulting from food
deprivation,” (Reber et al., 2009, p. 1). Real or essential definitions attempt to get at the
nature of the term being defined and usually carry a theoretical connection between several
observations or events. A formal definition consists of three parts: the definiendum, the
thing to be explained or described; the definiens, the description or explanation, which has
two parts, the proximate genus and the differentia; the proximate genus is the nearest
category to which the thing belongs, while the differentia are what distinguishes the thing
from others in its category; and the denotata, the extension of the definiens by example.
For a simple example, a parrot might be defined as “a bird with bright feathers and a
hooked beak that can learn to mimic human speech.” In this case, “parrot” is the definiendum,
“bird” the proximate genus, and “bright feathers, hooked beak,” the differentia; and “can
mimic human speech” the denotata. There are other ways and other sets of terms sometimes
used to break down a definition and a vast body of literature on the semantics of definitions,
but these will serve the purposes of this analysis.
A key element in looking at definitions is this: the tradition of definitions developed by
logicians and philosophers lies outside the tradition of definitions by lexicographers, that is
dictionaries (Pascal, cited in Rey, 2000). Confusion often arises from conflicts between
the dual traditions for creating definitions, a fact that will be illustrated in our analysis of the
definitions of SCM. Dictionary definitions are often criticized for being arbitrary in the name
of regularity of usage, while scientific definitions are criticized as arbitrary from the
perspective of general usage (Rey, 2000).
Three types of definitions, operational, formal, and real, are compatible with
concept-creating definitions in the Kantian sense, constructing a well-formed language in
the scientific sense and serving as a metalanguage for natural language (Rey, 2000). These are
basic components of definitions and necessary for a scientific approach to the language
involved in defining SCM. While we will refer to the other two types in our analysis, the formal
definition is the approach we use for the first stage of evaluating SCM definitions.
The rules for evaluating formal definitions are fundamentally Aristotelian (Aristotle, Book Supply chain
VI, in Sager, 2000). Most of these rules relate to the limit-setting nature of a definition. management
For example, a definition should not be too broad or too narrow. A definition should include all
of those things that fall under it and exclude all of those things that do not. It should avoid
vagueness, ambiguity, and uncertainty (Hayakawa, 1941; Copilowish, 1939; Robinson, 1950).
And, of course, it should avoid circularity and tautology ( Jacqette, 2013; Reber et al., 2009).
We should add that Piaget (1970, 1976) described a developmental approach to definitions 1439
that applies to individuals and by analogy to developing fields of study. We used Piaget’s
(1970, 1976) work to inform our definition and our analysis. However, it does not lend itself as
readily to evaluating definitions as does the Aristotelian approach (Robinson, 1950).
Methodology
This research was conducted in five steps. We, first, gathered definitions of SCM using both
manual and electronic means; second, cleaned (Wolk and Marasek, 2014) those definitions
and incorporated them into a corpus for textual analysis; third analyzed the chosen
definitions using the software, Voyant®, to isolate flaws in the definitions, identify common
terminology, and screen the list of definitions; fourth, subjected the definitions that passed
through this screening to further analysis using concepts from Korzybski (1958), Piaget
(1976), and Hayakawa (1941); and fifth, we offer options leading to a “unified theory
definition” for developing a taxonomy of SCM.
Selecting definitions for analysis

We chose definitions for analysis based on two criteria: availability; and reputation of the
source. We used availability because it can be involved in two major effects on those
who wish to know more about SCM, an availability effect and an anchoring effect.
The availability effect simply means that something is more likely to be bought, thought, or
used if it is easily obtained (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973). The anchoring effect means that
the first encounter with an object or an idea is likely to affect its measure, evaluation, or form
over time (Chapman and Johnson, 1999). This can be said of ideas as readily as it can be said
of physical objects.
The academic’s definition of SCM is likely to be nuanced, but that may not apply to
anyone else. The term SCM is used in job titles, career paths, and television commercials.
Journalists use the term, as do students, business practitioners, bloggers, and professionals
from other areas of businesses and organizations. Yet, the first definitions they
encounter are likely to come from Wikipedia.com, Webopedia.com, or businessdictionary.
com. These definitions are likely to affect how people think, act, and write about the field.
Gathering definitions
Availability. Applying the availability criterion meant going to the sources that most people
would consult if they decided they wanted to know more about SCM: search engines on the
internet, using either computers or mobile phones. We used three search terms, “supply
chain definitions,” “supply chain definitions university” and “supply chain management
definitions” in three internet search engines, Google, Bing, and Yahoo; these search engines
have the largest share of searches (alexa.com, 2016). We also used these same search terms
in the business academic databases, ABInform Global® and Business Source Complete®,
two widely available databases for business academic articles. We also used Google Scholar
to identify the articles and books that were most frequently cited for definition of
these terms. We found considerable overlap among these searches, giving priority to those
definitions that appeared in multiple locations.
IJLM For internet searches, we concluded our review after reviewing the fifth page of returned
28,4 results. By this stopping point, the sources seemed to dwindle or not likely to be considered
available (Alexa.com). For textbooks, we choose those that were on our bookshelves and those
of colleagues who teach and research in these areas. They were also the most current editions
from major business textbook publishers supplying the higher education markets. Journals
consulted were those indexed in the major academic business databases, but we did not limit
1440 the date range for our search terms. Also, we consulted academic journals from operations
management, production management, SCM, supply management, and logistics as these are
the major fields that contribute to the peer-reviewed literature on these definitions.
Reputation of the source. We viewed the reputation of the source from two perspectives:
the prominence of an organization in the field and the prominence of a written source.
This did not include a comprehensive list of the most prominent organizations in SCM,
logistics, or operations management, since many of these organizations publish no readily
available definitions of SCM on their websites or in their printed literature. That means the
criterion applied a version of availability in selecting the definitions.

A simple Google search of the term “supply chain management definitions” produced
619,000 potential sources, though obviously, many of those sources would be irrelevant and
unlikely to be searched. A similar search in 2005 produced 2,500 (Gibson et al., 2005).
This reflects the growth of the internet and Google connections more than it reflects a
dramatic increase in the number of definitions of SCM.
We also drew from widely used textbooks readily available to students and
academicians. The textbook definitions we used came from Coyle et al. (2013), Lambert
et al. (2008), and Christopher (1998). These texts were identified by their publishers as their
top sellers and Christopher (1998) is the single most cited source for “supply chain
management definitions” on Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com) We regard the
definitions in these textbooks as meeting both the criteria of availability and stature.
We defined stature using our own form of availability: could academics readily recall the
potential sources. To elaborate, the academicians included researchers in fields of logistics,
operations management, and supply management as well as marketing and transportation.
This was not a formal methodology nor was it intended to be. It was an application of
Tversky and Kahneman’s (1973) concept of availability or a heuristic for judging frequency
and probability. We defined “recall” as availability in this sense.
This led us to include definitions from three associations: the CSCMP, the American
Production and Inventory Control Society, and the Institute of Supply Management. It also
led us to websites from several universities with noted SCM programs, although many of
those programs do not include definitions of SCM on their websites or in their published
promotional materials. A few do: we included definitions from websites at Michigan State
University, Texas A&M University, the University of Tennessee, and North Carolina State
University. While some of these definitions came up in the Google and library searches,
some did not. We also included definitions that were analyzed in previous literature reviews
defining SCM. Some definitions appear frequently and were included. Many universities
showed up in a search for SCM definitions, but many of those universities used definitions
from other sources like APICS, CSCMP, a textbook, or a journal article.
Textual analysis
Collectively, the definitions in our research make a corpus for textual analysis. To convert
the raw definitions into a corpus for analysis, we cleaned the text, eliminating words such as
“the,” “of,” and other terms that were not key to the definiens. That is, we eliminated any
terms that were not categorical or distinguishing. The results of this cleaning process, in
keeping with Wołk and Marasek (2014), are shown in column 3 of Table II.
We then analyzed the text using a basic textual analysis software, Voyant. Voyant Supply chain
served the purpose of this research well and addressed the first position that many readily management
available definitions of SCM are tautologies, or partially tautological. Voyant works well
with a small corpus and provides graphical, quantitative, and relational results. The major
purpose of this stage of analysis was to identify the degree and number of tautological
definitions of SCM currently available and in wide usage.
Figure 1 shows the word cloud that resulted from the first pass analysis using Pro Word 1441
Cloud in Microsoft Word. Table III shows the word frequency count from that same analysis.
We used this approach to address the first of our positions: many of the readily available
definitions are tautologies or largely tautological. We found that this position was largely
justified by the results of this first stage analysis. When “supply,” “chain,” and especially
“management,” are the second, third, and fourth most common words in a corpus that was
drawn from 41 definitions of a term, many of the definitions are to some degree tautological.
Semantic analysis
As the textual analysis showed both quantitatively and graphically, many of the readily
available definitions are fundamentally flawed because they use words in the definiens that
are found in the definiendum. A simpler way of describing this is to say what we were
taught in elementary school: do not use a word in the definition of that word. Such
definitions are at least partially if not entirely tautological, effectively saying A ¼ A.
They tell the reader nothing and are empty.
Examine one definition from Handfield (2011): SCM is the active management of supply
chain activities to maximize value and achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.
The definiendum, the concept to be defined, is “SCM.” The definiens has two components,
the category into which the definiendum belongs and the features distinguishing it from
others in the category. In this case the category is “active management.” The first
distinguishing feature is “of supply chain activities.” The additional distinguishing feature,
the purpose, then distinguishes “the management of supply chain activities” that seek
“to maximize customer value and achieve sustainable competitive advantage.” Does that
Figure 1.
Word map/word
cloud relationships
IJLM Rank Term Frequency
28,4
1 Customer 39
2 Management 24
3 Supply 19
4 Information 18
5 Chain 16
1442 6 Activities 14
7 Flow 13
7 Suppliers 13
9 Value 13
10 End 12
10 Materials 12
10 Services 12
13 Products 11
14 Involved 10
14 Business 10
16 Includes 8
16 Processes 8
16 Product 8
16 User 8
20 Functions 6
20 Process 6
20 Logistics 6
20 Material 6
Table III. 20 Planning 6
Frequencies of terms 20 Service 6
from Voyant analysis 20 Ultimate 6
mean that seeking to minimize a firm’s own costs makes the category not a part of the
supply chain? Does that mean the activities of control, staffing, and planning are not SCM
items? These questions are answered in greater detail further along in this analysis. In
effect, this definition is saying that SCM is managing a supply chain.
This leads us to explicitly examine the tautologies and partial tautologies in the body of
definitions in this research. Table III shows that the most common word in the definitional
corpus is “customer.” That creates no tautological problems since no version of the word
customer appears in the definiendum. But the second, third, and fourth most common words
include “supply,” “supplier,” “chain,” and “management.” “Supplier” might be excused as a
different form of the word with a distinct meaning, but such that still leaves “supply,”
“chain,” and “management.”
Definitions that include all three words fit the definition of tautology, A ¼ A.
These definitions should be stricken from the roster because they support no theory, set no
boundaries, and add no meaning. Only two of the definitions included in the analysis included
all three words, but we did encounter similar definitions in the literature (see Ellinger and
Ellinger, 2014, for example). A definition of SCM that starts “active management of supply
chain activities” will not support the development of theory or a discipline (Handfield, 2011).
Theory will not thrive on a definition of SCM that includes the words in order: “Supply Chain
includes […] Supply Chain Management […]” (Taras and Taras, n.d.).
Most of the definitions on the list avoid this problem in its fullest sense. A few include the
word “supply” and a few, the word “chain.” Many, however, include the word
“management,” most often as a proximate genus in the definiens. Table IV shows the
source and the proximate genus from each of these definitions. Proximate genus means
the nearest category into which the definiendum should be placed. Putting a term that ends
Source Proximate genus “Management”
Supply chain
management
1. Christopher (1998) The management …
2. Copacino (1997) The art of managing …
3. Cooper and Ellram (1993) An integrative philosophy to manage …
4. CSX World Terminals (2004) The management and control …
5. Gibson et al. (2005) The planning and management of …
6. Stock and Boyer (2009) The management of … 1443
7. Anderson et al. (1997) Organizations involved in management of …
8. Harland (1996) The management of …
9. Stock and Boyer (2009) The management of …
10. Supply Chain Management (n.d.b) The management of …
11. Supply Chain Management (2016b) Management of …
12. Handfield (2011) The active management of … Table IV.
13. CSCMP (2016) The planning and management of … Supply chain
The management of …
14. CIPS Knowledge Team (2013) management

15. Supply Chain Management (2016a) The design and management of … definitions:
16. Klapper et al. (1999) The management of … “management” as
17. Supply Chain Management (2016a) The design and management of … proximate genus
in “management” into a category called “management” seems tautological on its face, and it
probably is. But tautologies are sometimes unavoidable and sometimes necessary.
Dictionaries are filled with tautological and circular definitions. The question is: is this
tautology unavoidable or tolerable in defining SCM?
The answer is probably not. Some distinctions should be considered. For example, we
might conceptualize a supply chain in the sense of “dirt-to-dirt.” Everything has a supply
chain and it runs from the point at which raw materials are grown in the earth or extracted
from it to the point at which the goods manufactured or used in this process are returned to
the earth once again. Viewed this way, the proper diagram for a supply chain is the infinity
symbol. The time it takes for a “dirt-to-dirt” supply chain process to completely unfold is
lengthy, the entirety of the process is too complex to admit to managing it. A distinction can
be made between a “supply chain” and a “managed supply chain.” A managed supply chain
can be planned, organized, and controlled, to fits within the reach of human coordination
and functions within the scope of ordinary time. It is neither infinite in time or beyond the
scope of control in space. A managed supply chain has limits relative to the conceptual,
theoretical supply chain. Carter et al. (2015) show how these boundaries can be drawn based
on their six premises which were discussed in an earlier section.
Also, the definition of management is not entirely clear. The process that is being applied
to SCM in this research could be applied to the term “management” with similar results,
although the absolute tautologies would be absent. “Management” is not defined as
“managing.” Clarity requires that a definition of SCM also use a proximate genus, a broad
category, that clarifies what is meant by the term “management.” Some of the definitions in
our research do so.
Table V shows the proximate genuses other than “management.” These classifications
reflect the contradictions in the literature. Nine of the 24 genuses include “integration” or
“coordination.” Three of the 24 classify SCM on the basis of entities, three use activities, and
four do so on the basis of an approach, philosophy, art, or science. One uses “processes”
alone, but this word appears with other terms as well, for example, “integration of
processes.” The remainder use substitute words for “management” including “control,”
“streamlining,” and “oversight.” Discussions in the literature include making distinctions
between process, network, and philosophical approaches to the study of supply chains and
their management (Ellram and Cooper, 2014; Stock and Boyer, 2009).
IJLM Source Proximate genus
28,4
1. Lambert (2008) The integration
2. Coyle et al. (2013) The art and science of integrating
3. Lummus and Alber (1997) The network of entities
4. Jespersen and Skjott-Larsen (2005) The integration of business processes
5. Chopra and Meindl (2007) All parties involved, directly or indirectly, in fulfilling a customer
1444 request
6. Mentzer (2001) A company, an immediate supplier, and an immediate customer
directly linked
7. Simchi-Levi et al. (2008) A set of approaches
8. Quinn (1997) All of those activities associated with moving goods
9. LaLonde (1996) The delivery of enhanced customer and economic value
10. Cooper et al. (1997) The integration of key business processes
11. Larson and Rogers (1998) The coordination of activities
12. Cooper and Ellram (1993) An integrative philosophy

13. Lummus et al. (2001) All the activities involved in delivering a product
14. Mentzer et al. (2001) The systematic, strategic coordination
15. Supply Chain Management (SCM) The active streamlining of a business’ supply-side activities to
Definition|Investopedia (2003) maximize customer value and to gain a competitive advantage in
the marketplace
16. Wailgum (2007) The combination of art and science
17. Taras and Taras (n.d.) The movement of materials
18. Supply Chain Management (n.d.a) Control
19. Cox et al. (1992) The processes
20. CSCMP (2016) An integrating function
Table V. 21. CIPS Knowledge Team (2013) The selection and linking of suppliers and
Supply chain 22. CIPS Knowledge Team (2013) The continuous planning, developing, controlling, informing and
management monitoring of actions
definitions: proximate 23. Cavinato (2010) The identification, acquisition, access, positioning, management
genus without of resources and related capabilities
tautology 24. Michigan State University (2014) An integrated approach to
These proximate genuses cause little trouble for the definitions in this analysis. They avoid
the tautology problem, but many of them run into additional problems. The second major
position in this research was also confirmed: many readily available definitions of supply
chain management go beyond the fundamental concept of definition, restricting supply
chain management in ways that inhibit theoretical development in the field.
The differentia are the final major components of a definition from the set we applied in
this research. For this analysis, we refer to Table II, rather than to a separate table.
The differentia vary greatly among the definitions. There are some commonalities that
relate to the nature of definitions themselves: the differentia set boundaries, so they exclude
things that are not SCM. Consider “business” in the definition from Lambert (2008), or
“profit” in the definition from Larson and Rogers (1998). Does that mean non-profit
organizations, especially charities, cannot be involved in SCM? The Lambert definition
employs the phrase “that add value for customers and other stakeholders.” Does that mean
if the activity does not add value for customers it is not SCM? 11 of the definitions employ
the idea of “adding value for customers” as differentia. These definitions simply do not
allow for the idea that SCM might be done badly. If a company is inefficient and ineffective
in controlling the flow of goods to and from its customers and suppliers, then it cannot be
involved in SCM according to these definitions.
A similar problem arises for the definitions that include other intentions – maximizing
profitability (Stock and Boyer, 2009), the highest degree of customer satisfaction
and the lowest possible cost (Supply Chain Management, 2016a), deliver superior
customer value at less cost (Christopher, 1998), and minimize system wide costs Supply chain
(Simchi-Levi et al., 2008). These intentions set boundaries that exclude from SCM management
activities, processes, and entities that these authors would most likely call “SCM.”
In summary, these qualifiers limit what the definitions encompass and do so in ways that
make little practical or theoretical sense.
Definitions can also be too broad or too narrow. Many definitions in this research use
terms that make them too broad. “key business processes” (Lambert, 2008), “entire supply 1445
pipeline” (Coyle et al., 2013), “all parties involved in fulfilling a customer request” (Chopra
and Meindl, 2007), “coordination of the traditional business functions” (Mentzer et al., 2001),
and others. These definitions assume or imply that the entire organization falls under SCM.
Definitions that are too narrow include those with specified purposes, but also those that
include qualifiers like “efficiently” (Simchi-Levi et al., 2008). Some SCM is clearly inefficient,
but should still be considered SCM. Other definitions limit supply chains to business or to
material flows, denying the concept of SCM to not-for-profit organizations and services.
Some definitions are both too broad and too narrow. Mentzer et al. (2001) also specifies a
purpose that makes the definition too narrow (see 19 in Table V ).
SCM touches many areas including marketing, information systems, accounting and
finance, but this intersection does not that SCM encompasses them. As Carter et al. (2015)
suggest, supply chains have boundaries.
Discussion and a proposed definition

Our third and fourth positions are less readily subject to analysis, but are subject to
argumentation. The third position was: a consensus definition of SCM is unlikely until the
technical problems of the definitions are eliminated or minimized. A principal argument in
favor of this position is simply that we have not solved the technical problems with the
definitions and we have not reached a consensus definition. This argument alone, however,
will not suffice. It simply reflects correlation, not necessarily causation. To further aggravate
the problem of supporting this point, it is possible to argue that as an applied discipline, no
true theory is really possible, so the existence of a consensus definition makes no difference.
As an applied discipline, SCM is too much a moving target, too much alive only in the eye of
the beholder, and too attached to variable circumstances to support development as a
theoretical pursuit. The point, in that case, would simply not be that important.
Clearly, we think otherwise, as do many others. The underlying notion of coordinating
the movement and storage of goods, services, money, and information across organizational
boundaries seems to beg for the development of a theory, of some consistent approach that
reveals more about it. Then the case for a technically sound definition is strong, and the
position holds. A consensus is more likely to be reached once these technical issues have
been addressed and the definitions are more grounded not only in theory of SCM but also in
the theory of semantics and linguistics. This is an applied discipline and must move beyond
the technical issues if it is to develop a stronger theoretical foundation.
Carter et al. (2015) also helped to make this argument. Their six premises helped to
associate a definition of “supply chain” with broader theory, complex adaptive systems.
Their premises can contribute to a clearer and more widely accepted definition of SCM and
help to eliminate the technical problems in many of the currently available definitions.
The fourth position was: a consensus definition will emerge over time, once we begin to
focus on language of the definitions and allow theory and practice to develop. While the lack
of a consistent, standardized definition in a field may not seem to be such a problem,
especially in the world of business where “SCM” seems well understood by the reader, it is a
problem nonetheless. For theory building, for model building and to advance a discipline, a
common terminology is paramount. Researchers would demand such a clear terminology in
science or medicine and the same is required in business. Contributions to SCM come from
IJLM number of sub-specializations in business, and more fields seem to join the group over time.
28,4 We note the difficulty of finding a common language for this myriad of individuals who are
involved, as we trace to flow of goods and services from raw materials, through supply,
manufacturing, and distribution to the customer, as well as return streams of waste,
recycling, and reclaimed goods in a reverse logistics process. Still, from this morass of
positions, a consensus definition could emerge, one that would support theory and practice.
1446 Piaget (1970) suggested that definitions emerge as children develop a greater
consciousness of the world around them and that their definitions become more complex
and refined over time. The same is true of scientific disciplines and other fields of study as
we better understand the world that we are trying to describe. Piaget’s (1970) notion of
structure seems applicable and we have incorporated it in our definition of SCM. Like
supply chains themselves, the definitions are likely to stabilize over time, but adapt as
conditions change. For example, The Institute of Supply Management is the new name for
the National Association of Purchasing Management and the CSCMP was the Council of
Logistics Management and earlier the National Association of Physical Distribution

Management. These changes in name represent changes in orientation and in
understanding of the issues that their memberships were facing and addressing.
Theories are necessary to explain facts or events and are required for a common
understanding to advance a field. The definition of the field is the starting point. A definition
is important to better define the scope of SCM and not limit the scope of involved practices
and players. In research to expand our knowledge or lead to new breakthrough or
systematically studying a field, all involved in addressing these issues must work together.
Working together requires starting from the same definition as we work to expand our
understanding. This research will not lead to appropriate theory building without it.
To research the lack of a coherent, agreed-upon definition in SCM necessitates
suggesting a definition. We propose this definition and offer it for study and further
refinement and modification. Involved organizations, SCM programs in higher education,
and professional and certifying organizations in the field need to meet and work together to
research consensus on the final definition of the field, realizing that definitions can evolve,
but also recognizing that a starting point is needed in this rapidly growing area.
We propose the following definition as meeting the technical requirement we have
outlined and as supportive of theory:
Supply chain management is the design and coordination of a network through which
organizations and individuals get, use, deliver, and dispose of material goods; acquire and
distribute services; and make their offerings available to markets, customers, and clients.
Theoretical justification for the proposed definition

Piaget (1970), in developing his notion of structuralism, suggested that organizations and
disciplines mature in much the same manner as children, gaining over time a better
understanding of themselves and their world. He also described a mature organization as
one that has stabilized, but is prepared to adapt to changing circumstances (Piaget, 1970).
These ideas support the “journey” described by Ellram and Cooper (2014) and the analysis
of supply chains as complex adaptive systems described by Carter et al. (2015).
Ellram and Cooper (2014) identified five structures or approaches to SCM definitions and
theory. This definition addresses all five categories. We suggest that SCM is a philosophy that
infuses a discipline; a discipline that influences a governance structure; governance structure
that authorizes and designs a functional area; and a functional area that implements a process
based on the philosophy. In a sense, we are choosing “all of the above,” but also choosing to
create a structure among the categories. We noted earlier that governance structure as a
category may contribute to a better definition of SCM, especially to the “management” term.
The six premises offered by Carter et al. (2015) obviously focus on the differentia, the Supply chain
supply chain portion of the definiendum as it appears in the definiens. This definition also management
seems to fit with the premises that informed their analysis of the supply chain. They argued
that a supply chain is a network and bounded by the horizon of the focal agent. We chose
our version of “management” primarily to align with their analysis.
This definition meets the criteria we set forth as necessary for a “good” definition.
It allows for extensions like “humanitarian” and “sustainable” without demanding the 1447
writing of a completely new definition or set of definitions. It makes explicit what is meant
by “management.” It also makes a definitive choice between “system” and “network.”
To simplify the argument, we are suggesting that a system is a network with a purpose.
This definition makes the purpose of the network explicit with the verbs that follow the
term, so system would be redundant. It also makes explicit the inbound and outbound
nature of supply chains and incorporates both supply channels and distribution channels,
which seems to be the way the term is used in all of its parent disciplines. Since all of the
previous definitions of SCM have avoided any mention of human capital, we also excluded it
as belonging to the domain of human resources.
In Piaget’s terms, structures are self-regulating systems of operations that relate to
each other on the basis of coordination. Together, these coordinated operations make a
totality that is greater than its parts. The coordination in these structures are based on
invariant or conservational principles of inter-relationships that tend toward equilibrium
with the environment (Piaget, 1970). Because the transformational operations are
reversible, the systems and networks of a structure constitute adaptive systems, and
where supply chains are concerned, complex, adaptive systems (CAS).
All of these ideas are suggestive for the development of a definition of SCM. At the same
time, they do not offer the same kinds of evaluative criteria that are offered by the more
Aristotelian approach taken by Robinson (1950). One issue that should be considered in this
context is whether a supply chain emerges from the environment or is consciously
constructed to fit in the environment, or even is opportunistically identified and used in that
same environment. For a discipline, it seems necessary to identify managed supply chains
as conscious constructs, not emergent, but certainly coordinated.
Explanation of the definition

We analyzed our definition by using the same criteria we used to evaluate other definitions.
We relied on Robinson (1950) and Reber et al. (2009) to establish the categories and criteria
we use here.
The proximate genus in this definition includes two terms, “design” and “coordination.”
The term “design” incorporates the notion of conscious deliberation into the definition.
It implies that supply chains do not just happen and also addresses the issue of the reach of
SCM. If it is impossible in many instances to coordinate the complete “dirt-to-dirt” supply
chain, then the concept of design allows for cutting off a segment of that larger chain, a
segment that is subject to some form of management. This is in keeping with Carter et al.
(2015) and the premise that supply chains have boundaries, as well as a focal agent whose
horizon may define those boundaries.
The term “coordination” brings in the idea that networks comprising supply chains must
be fitted and refitted to allow for the possibility of effectiveness, efficiency, or both, with the
understanding that a supply chain may achieve neither. This term also reflects, with minor
modification, Piaget’s (1970) terminology on structure, particularly the idea of
“coordinations” as collections of processes.
In the differentia, we used “networks,” “organizations and individuals,” and a series of
short verbs. We used the terms “organizations and individuals” because “entities” seems too
formal and awkward. That choice was based on aesthetics, and nothing more.
IJLM “Network” and “system” offered a difficult choice in creating this definition. A network
28,4 as a set of interconnected entities might also be called a “system.” In a supply chain context,
it might even be called a complex adaptive system in keeping with Carter et al. (2015).
However, we took the position that a system is a network with a purpose and that the
remainder of the differentia outlined the purpose of the network. Consequently, “system”
could be redundant. We also considered “complex adaptive system,” but that seemed to
1448 exclude some things that might otherwise be considered supply chains. There is no doubt
that an argument can be made for other choices, but “network” seems to serve the purpose.
The choice of terms for activities may draw some attention since we used simple verbs
like “get,” “use,” “deliver,” and “dispose.” These terms cover a variety of activities and do not
limit SCM to formal, functional activities like supply management, purchasing, or
operations management. These terms do allow for those activities, but also allow for more,
less formal undertakings. Organizations have operations that bring in paper clips and
disposable pens, but that may be a staff member who stops by the office supply store.
Organizations engaged in illegal activities have supply chains, although it may be difficult
to identify the “purchasing department.”
We distinguished between material goods and services because they are treated
differently in supply chains. Intangible services require no disposal. They may also involve
a larger human element, an issue that we will address in greater detail.
We also included a part of the definition that points explicitly to distribution channels.
We used the term “make available” rather than “deliver” because customers often purchase
goods themselves. UPS may drop a package on someone’s front porch, or that same person
may go the grocery store and bring home similar goods in an SUV. We used three terms,
“markets,” “customers,” and “clients” to describe recipients. We used “customers” because a
key point in many supply chains is one of exchange – a customer pays money for a market
offering. We used “client” because not every supply chain has a point of exchange, and to
accommodate services. For example, humanitarian and disaster relief supply chains may
deliver goods and services, but the money for doing so does not necessarily come from the
client. We used the term “market” because sometimes goods and services are made available
to the market, but they are not sold or delivered.
This definition does exclude some activities that might seem related to SCM. If someone
grows zucchini in his or her back yard to sells at a road side stand in front of their house,
that set of activities may not fit into this definition of SCM. It depends on the number of
entities included in the operation and whether a network is considered a relationship
between two entities or three or more entities.
Areas for future research

The contribution of this research is threefold: it identified specific criteria for judging
definitions of SCM; it refines the meaning of the word “management” as it applies to supply
chains; and it offers a comprehensive definition of SCM that is grounded in theory.
That is not to suggest that the work is done. There is much room for additional research and
conceptualization in this area. The future research could include additional work in the
relationship between definitions of supply chain and SCM as well as greater elaboration on
the ties between definitions of SCM and SCM theory. Ultimately, it is a response to the late
Don Bowersox, who argued that if we, as academics in the field, could not answer the
questions “Who are we?” and “What do we do?” then who could?
Future research is needed to benchmark other fields that have moved to a standardized
definition and study the process and apply it to the field of SCM. Empirical research is also
needed to poll experts to determine if they believe a consensus definition of SCM is
necessary. More training on how to develop a good definition that is neither restrictive or
expansive is needed and articles on the process should be developed and disseminated in the
broad field. More research on the current restrictive definitions of SCM is needed to Supply chain
determine ways this restriction has limited theoretical development. The scientific approach management
to the definitions should be extended to new and emerging fields of business as these field
move toward a consensus definition.
In our discussion of the selection of the terms, we cover the differences that might be
found among disciplines. However, clear differences between disciplines are likely to
be found in textbooks. It is not as simple to distinguish between journal and academic 1449
sources, again because of the cross-over of authors and journals. We regard this as an
important point and note this is an area for future research.
Another approach to addressing the lack of consensus definition is to search for
consensus in the “sub-disciplines” related to SCM, or the disciplines that contribute to the
body of knowledge in SCM, and attempt to quantify these by category. It should also be
noted that not only has SCM as a discipline failed to reach consensus, other disciplines, such
as information systems, have gone through similar struggles for identity and definition.
This includes more established disciplines of marketing and economics.
References
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1960), “The axiomatic systems from the methodological point of view”, Studia Logica:
An International Journal of Symbolic Logic.
Alexa.com (2016), “Top 500 sites on the Web”, available at: www.alexa.com/topsites/category/
Computers/Internet/Searching/Search_Engines (accessed July 22, 2016).
Anderson, D.L., Britt, F.F. and Favre, D.J. (2007), “The 7 principles of supply chain management”,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 41-46.
Business Dictionary.com (n.d.), “Definition of supply chain management”, available at:
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/supply-chain-management-SCM.html (accessed July
22, 2016).
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S. and Choi, T.Y. (2015), “Toward the theory of the supply chain”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 89-97.
Cavinato, J.L. (2010), “Supply management defined”, January, available at: www.
instituteforsupplymanagement.org/content.cfm?ItemNumber=5558 (accessed August 30, 2016).
Chapman, G.B. and Johnson, E.J. (1999), “Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 115-153.
Charvet, F.F., Cooper, M.C. and Gardner, J.T. (2008), “The intellectual structure of supply chain
management: a bibliometric approach”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-73,
available at: http://ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.
edu/docview/212666036?accountid=14787
Chicksand, D., Watson, G., Walker, H., Radnor, Z. and Johnston, R. (2012), “Theoretical perspectives in
purchasing and supply chain management: an analysis of the literature”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 454-472.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-150.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2007), Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation, 3rd ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Christopher, M. (1992), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Financial Times/Irwin Professional
Publications, London.
CIPS Knowledge Team (2013), “The definitions of ‘Procurement’ and ‘Supply Chain Management’
(PDF)”, Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply, Australasia.
Cooper, M.C. and Ellram, L.M. (1993), “Characteristics of supply chain management and the
implications for purchasing and logistics strategy”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 13-24.
IJLM Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management: more than a new name
28,4 for logistics”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Copacino, W.C. (1997), Supply Chain Management: The Basics and Beyond, St Lucie Press,
Boca Raton, FL, p. 7.
Copilowish, I.M. (1939), “Border-line cases, vagueness, and ambiguity”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 181-195.
1450 Cox, J.F., Blackstone, J.H. and Spencer, M.S. (1992), APICS Dictionary, 9th ed., American Production and
Inventory Control Society, Falls Church, VA.
Coyle, B., Langley, C.J., Novack, R.A. and Gibson, B.J. (2013), Supply Chain Management: A Logistics
Perspective, 9th ed., South Western-Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
CSCMP (2016), CSCMP Supply Chain Management Definitions and Glossary, available at: https://
cscmp.org/supply-chain-management-definitions (accessed July 20, 2016).
CSCMP, Gibson, B.J., Hanna, J.B., Defee, C.C. and Chen, H. (2013), The Definitive Guide to Integrated
Supply Chain Management, Pearson FT Press.

CSCMP et al. (2013), Oak Brook, IL.
CSX World Terminals (2004), CSX World Terminals Glossary of Terms, available at: www.csx
worldterminals.comresourcesglossary.aspss (accessed July 22, 2016).
Ellinger, A.E. and Ellinger, A.D. (2014), “Leveraging human resource development expertise to improve
supply chain managers’ skills and competencies”, European Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 118-135.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2014), “Supply chain management: it’s all about the journey, not the
destination”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 8-20.
Fayol, H. (1917), “Administration industrielle et générale; prévoyance, organisation, commandement,
coordination, controle”, in Dunod and Pinat (Eds), Industrial and General Administration
(Trans. by J.A. Coubrough), Paris, H. Dunod et E. Pinat, London (in French).
Gibson, B.J., Mentzer, J.T. and Cook, R.L. (2005), “Supply chain management: the pursuit of a consensus
definition”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 17-25.
Handfield, R. (2011), “What is supply chain management?”, January 11, available at: https://scm.ncsu.
edu/scm-articles/article/what-is-supply-chain-management (accessed July 20, 2016).
Harland, C.M. (1996), “Supply chain management: relationships, chains and networks”, British Journal
of Management, Vol. 7 No. S1, pp. 63-80, available at: www.alexa.com/topsites/category/
Computers/Internet/Searching/Search_Engines (accessed August 30, 2016).
Hayakawa, S.I. (1941), Language in Action: A Guide to Accurate Thinking and Writing,
Harcourt, Brace, & Company, New York, NY.
Jacquette, D. (2013), “Phenomenological thought content, intentionality, and reference in Putnam’s
Twin Earth”, Philosophical Forum, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 69-87, doi: 10.1111/phil.12002.
Jespersen, B.D. and Skjott-Larsen, T. (2005), Supply Chain Management: In Theory and Practice,
Copenhagen Business School Press, Herndon, VA.
Johnson, J.C. and Wood, D.F. (1996), Contemporary Logistics, 6th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, S. (2016), “What Don Bowersox said in 2008. Personal interview”, unpublished, Interviewer
Stephen A. LeMay and Pensacola, F.L.
Klapper, L.S., Hamblin, N., Hutchinson, L., Novak, L. and Vivar, J. (1999), Supply Chain Management:
A Recommended Performance Measurement Scorecard, Logistics Management Institute,
McLean, VA.
Korzybski, A. (1958), Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General
Semantics, Distributed by Institute of General Semantics, International Non-Aristotelian Library
Pub. Co., Lakeville, CT.
Kranz, S. (1996), “What is it?”, Purchasing Today, October, p. 4.
Kuhn, T. (1970/1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Supply chain
Chicago, IL and London. management
LaLonde, B.J. (1996), “Supply chain management by the numbers”, Supply Chain Management Review,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-8.
Lambert, D.M. (Ed.) (2008), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance, 3rd ed.,
Supply Chain Institute, Sarasota, FL, p. 2.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation issues 1451
and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 1-20, available at: http://ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.
lib.uwf.edu/docview/235895365?accountid=14787
Lambert, D.M., Stock, J.R. and Ellram, L. (2008), Fundamentals of Logistics, McGraw-Hill/Irwin,
Chicago, IL.
Larson, P.D. and Rogers, D.S. (1998), “Supply chain management: definition, growth and approaches”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-5.

Lummus, R.R. and Alber, K.L. (1997), Supply Chain Management: Balancing the Supply Chain with
Customer Demand, APICS Educational & Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J. (1999), “Defining supply chain management: a historical perspective
and practical guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Lummus, R.R., Krumwiede, D.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (2001), “The relationship of logistics to supply
chain management: developing a common industry definition”, Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 8, pp. 426-432.
Martin, C. (1998), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Cost and Improving
Service, Financial Times/Pitman, London.
Mentzer, J.T. (2001), Supply Chain Management, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 440.
Mentzer, J.T., Dewitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Oliver, R.K. and Weber, M.D. (1982), “Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with strategy”,
in Christopher, M.L. (Ed.), Logistics: The Strategic Issues, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 63-75.
Piaget, J. (1970), Structuralism, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Piaget, J. (1976), “Piaget’s theory”, in Bärbel, I., Harold, H.C. and Charles, Z. (Eds), Piaget and His
School, Springer, Berlin, pp. 11-23.
Popper, K. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
Quinn, F.J. (1997), “What’s the buzz?”, Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 43-47.
Reber, A.S., Reber, E. and Allen, R. (2009), The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology: Fourth Edition,
Penguin, New York, NY.
Rey, A. (2000), “Introduction to essays on definition”, in Sager, J.C. (Ed.), Essays on Definitions,
John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
Robinson, R. (1950), Definition, Oxford University Press, London.
Rossetti, C.L. and Dooley, K.J. (2010), “Job types in the supply chain management profession”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 40-56.
Rouse, M. (n.d.), “Supply chain management (SCM)”, available at: http://searchmanufacturingerp.
techtarget.com/definition/supply-chain-management (accessed July 20, 2016).
Sager, J.C. (Ed.) (2000), Essays on Definition, John Benjamins Publishing Co, Amsterdam.
Skjoett-Larsen, T. (1999), “Supply chain management: a new challenge for researchers and managers in
logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 41-53,
available at: http://ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.
edu/docview/235874327?accountid=14787
IJLM Skjoett-Larsen, T. and Bagchi, P.K. (2005), “Supply chain integration: a European survey”,
28,4 The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 2.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P. and Simchi-Levi, E. (2008), Designing and Managing the Supply Chain:
Concepts, Strategies, and Case Studies, 3rd ed., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY, p. 1.
Stein, M. and Voehl, F. (1998), Macrologistics Management, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 263.
Stock, J.R. and Boyer, S.L. (2009), “Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management:
1452 a qualitative study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 690-711, available at: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/10.1108/09600030
910996323
Supply Chain Management (SCM) (2003), “Definition on Investopedia”, available at: www.investopedia.
com/terms/s/scm.asp (accessed July 22, 2014).
Supply Chain Management (2014), “Definition of supply chain management”, available at: http://
supplychain.broad.msu.edu/msscm/definition (accessed October 12, 2014).
Supply Chain Management (2016a), available at: www.instituteforsupplymanagement.org/Glossary/

KCDetail.cfm?TermID=2571
Supply chain management (2016b), available at: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/supply-chain-
management-SCM.html (accessed July/August, 2016).
Supply Chain Management (n.d.a), “Definition on Webopedia”, available at: http://www.webopedia.
com/TERM/S/supply_chain_management.html (accessed July 22, 2014).
Supply Chain Management (n.d.b), “Definition on Wikipedia”, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Supply_chain_management (accessed July 22, 2014).
Taras, M. and Taras, J. (n.d.), “Supply chain definitions”, available at: www.supplychaindefinitions.com/
(accessed July 22, 2016).
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973), “Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability”,
Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 207-232.
Wailgum, T. (2007), “Supply chain management definition and solutions”, March 19, available at:
www.cio.com/article/2439493/supply-chain-management/supply-chain-management-definition-
and-solutions.html (accessed July 22, 2016).
Wołk, K. and Marasek, K. (2014), “A sentence meaning based alignment method for parallel text
corpora preparation”, in Rocha, Á., Correia, A.M., Tan, F.B. and Stroetmann, K.A. (Eds), New
Perspectives in Information Systems and Technologies, Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing, Vol. 1, Springer International Publishing, pp. 229-237.
Zacharia, Z.G., Sanders, N.R. and Fugate, B.S. (2014), “Evolving functional perspectives within supply
chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 73-88, available at:
http://ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/docview/
1546411351?accountid=14787
Further reading
Beck, L.W. (1956), “Kant’s theory of definition”, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 179-191.
Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Added Networks,
Pearson Education, London.
Christopher, M. (2016), Logistics & Supply Chain Management, Pearson Higher Ed., New York, NY.
Croom, S., Romano, P. and Giannakis, M. (2000), “Supply chain management: an analytical framework
for critical literature review”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Hayakawa, S.I. and Hayakawa, A.R. (1990), Language in Thought and Action, Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, New York, NY.
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial Marketing Supply chain
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83. management
Sheth, J.N. and Uslay, C. (2007), “Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to
value creation”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 302-307.
Stern, B.B. (2006), “What does brand mean? Historical-analysis method and construct definition”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 216-223.
1453
Corresponding author
Marilyn M. Helms can be contacted at: mhelms@daltonstate.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This article has been cited by:
1. Marilyn M. Helms, Stephen A. LeMay, Michael J. Dwyer. 2018. Contrasting FOR and WITH
factor chains: The case of material supply chains and human factor chains in Guatemalan
nongovernmental organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
19, e1631. [Crossref]

Supply Chain Management Concept and Definition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply Chain Management Concept and Definition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Logistics Management

Supply chain management: the elusive concept and definition

Downloaded on: 22 January 2019, At: 05:18 (PT)

Supply chain theory and definitions

Defining supply chain and defining management

chain and supply

Web source URL Supply chain Supply chain management

The material and informational interchanges in the

downstream relationships with suppliers relationships suppliers customers deliver

economic value through synchronized value synchronized management flow

Table II. (continued )

services, and information from customer’s customers

(continued ) Table II.

resources involved in moving a product supplier customer

Table II. (continued )

(1999) functions to satisfy a customer’s orders to satisfy a customer’s orders

1438 The composition of definitions

Selecting definitions for analysis

criterion applied a version of availability in selecting the definitions.

14. CIPS Knowledge Team (2013) management

12. Cooper and Ellram (1993) An integrative philosophy

Discussion and a proposed definition

Logistics Management and earlier the National Association of Physical Distribution

Theoretical justification for the proposed definition

Explanation of the definition

Areas for future research

This includes more established disciplines of marketing and economics.

Supply Chain Management, Pearson FT Press.

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-5.

Supply Chain Management (2016a), available at: www.instituteforsupplymanagement.org/Glossary/

You might also like