International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Supply chain management: a comparison of Scandinavian and American perspectives

Árni Halldórsson, Paul D. Larson, Richard F. Poist,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

Árni Halldórsson, Paul D. Larson, Richard F. Poist, (2008) "Supply chain management: a comparison
of Scandinavian and American perspectives", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 38 Issue: 2, pp.126-142, https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810861206
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810861206
Downloaded on: 04 March 2018, At: 14:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3460 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2007),"Complementary theories to supply chain management", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 284-296 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598540710759808">https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710759808</a>
(2006),"A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain strategies", The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 277-287 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090610689998">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09574090610689998</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:514734 []
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.
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

IJPDLM
38,2 Supply chain management:
a comparison of Scandinavian
and American perspectives
126
Árni Halldórsson
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

School of Management, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Received July 2007
Revised December 2007 Paul D. Larson
Accepted January 2008
Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, and
Richard F. Poist
Department of Logistics, Operations & MIS, College of Business,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to advance understanding of international differences in
supply chain management (SCM) perspectives and practices, by comparing perceptions of
Scandinavian and American supply chain managers.
Design/methodology/approach – The survey focused on the definition of SCM, along with
facilitators of and barriers to SCM implementation. A four-page questionnaire was designed and sent
by mail. After follow-ups, 23 Scandinavians and 104 Americans returned completed questionnaires.
Findings – While many similarities were found between Scandinavians and Americans, several
differences were also identified. Both groups have adopted broad, multiple function perspectives on
SCM; and both groups perceive SCM implementation to be slower and more difficult than expected.
Two differences are the Americans’ greater concern about incompatible systems and implementation
costs as barriers to SCM, compared to the Scandinavians.
Research limitations/implications – The study is based on relatively small samples, of limited
functional (logistics) and geographic (Scandinavia and America) scope. Future research should expand
the functional focus into purchasing, operations, and marketing; and the geographic coverage to other
parts of the world.
Practical implications – Internal resistance is more of a barrier than external (customer or
supplier) resistance to SCM. Thus, organizations should focus first on internal (functional) integration,
and then move onto inter-organizational integration. However, employees working with customers
and suppliers should use these external relationships to inspire closer internal relationships.
Further, people are more critical than technology in implementing SCM. Organizations should get the
right people in place first, and then think about technology.
Originality/value – There is little empirical research on SCM implementation. Practitioners and
researchers should find value in this unique comparative study.
Keywords Supply chain management, Cross-cultural studies, Scandinavia, United States of America
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management Introduction
Vol. 38 No. 2, 2008
pp. 126-142 According to the world trade organization, world exports and imports exceeded
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
US$24 trillion in 2006, nearly double the 2001 number (www.wto.org). As supply
DOI 10.1108/09600030810861206 chains go global, it becomes more important to understand how SCM is defined and
 implemented around the world. There are four strategic perspectives on the definition Supply chain
of SCM vis-à-vis logistics (Larson and Halldórsson, 2004), and a variety of barriers and management
facilitators to SCM implementation. This paper advances understanding of
international differences in SCM perspectives and practices; by reporting results of a
Scandinavian survey on SCM implementation, including comparisons of these results
to those of an identical American survey.
There are four more sections to follow, as described below. The next section is a 127
review of selected SCM literature, focusing on the definition and implementation of
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

SCM. The following two sections describe the research methods and present statistical
results, respectively. The final section of the paper discusses implications for SCM
practitioners and researchers.

Literature review
Lingering confusion about the meaning of supply chain management (SCM) is observed
by American academics (Mentzer et al., 2001); Scandinavian scholars, such as
Skjøtt-Larsen (1999); and scholars in the UK (Giannakis and Croom, 2004). There is also
a lack of consensus on the conceptual relationship between logistics and SCM. Cooper et al.
(1997, p. 1) note: “practitioners and educators have variously addressed the concept of SCM
as an extension of logistics, the same as logistics, or as an all-encompassing approach to
business integration.” They even suggest that SCM “can be the management of all
business processes” (p. 5). Such a discrepancy is not new in the logistics discipline. Nearly,
40 years ago, Bowersox (1969) observed a lack of standardized definition of physical
distribution, an emerging field at that time.
According to Metz (1998), SCM “is the logical progression of developments in
logistics management.” SCM has evolved through four stages of increasing functional
breadth. The first stage, physical distribution, involved integrating the transportation
and warehousing functions. Logistics, the second stage, added the following functions to
SCM: procurement, manufacturing and order management. The third stage, integrated
SCM, positions both suppliers and customers in the supply chain. The fourth and final
stage, “super” SCM, includes additional functions, e.g. marketing, product development
and customer service. Metz (1998) suggests that SCM has evolved from a narrow subset
of logistics to a broad, multiple function phenomenon.
The Council of Logistics Management (CLM) was compelled by the SCM concept to
rename itself the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). The
council has adopted a rather broad view of SCM, which:
. . . encompasses the planning and management of all activities involved in sourcing and
procurement, conversion, and all logistics management activities. It also includes coordination
and collaboration with channel partners, which can be suppliers, intermediaries, third-party
service providers, and customers (Council of Logistics Management, 2004).
The present study considers four conceptual perspectives on SCM vs logistics:
traditionalist, re-labeling, unionist, and intersectionist. This section briefly describes
each perspective, referring to the logistics literature.
The four perspectives are adopted from Larson and Halldórsson (2004), and their
search for ways to differentiate and integrate logistics and SCM, starting in 1999.
The four perspectives are based on study of the literature; informal discussions
with logistics professionals; and a survey of logistics educators, which confirmed
 IJPDLM the existence of the four perspectives. If logistics and SCM are considered fields within
38,2 business, then the four perspectives cover all possible ways the two fields might be
inter-related: logistics equals SCM (re-labeling), logistics subsumes SCM
(traditionalist), logistics is subsumed by SCM (unionist), or logistics and SCM
overlap partially (intersectionist). A fifth option, that there is no connection between
logistics and SCM, seems indefensible.
128
Traditionalist
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

To the traditionalist, SCM is a logistics function or a subset of logistics. The logistics

community has viewed SCM as “logistics outside the firm to include customers and
suppliers” (Stock and Lambert, 2001, p. 56). This reduces SCM to a special type of
logistics, with an external focus. In the world of practice, traditionalists might create
“SCM analyst” positions, situated within the logistics department. These SCM analysts
would focus on logistics problems and opportunities, in an inter-organizational
context, e.g. joint logistics planning with suppliers and/or customers.

Re-labeling
Re-labeling simply entails a name change; from logistics to SCM. Re-labeling keeps the
scope of SCM narrow in a functional sense, since SCM equals logistics. For example,
Simchi-Levi et al. (2003, p. 2) do “not distinguish between logistics and supply chain
management.” Logistics managers are now supply chain managers; a new title, a new
business card, but the same old job description.

Unionist
Unionists position logistics within SCM. SCM subsumes numerous traditional business
functional areas; including purchasing, logistics, operations, and perhaps even marketing.
A company adopting the unionist perspective may start by creating a new high-level
position, e.g. Vice President of SCM, and proceed by changing reporting relationships and
the organizational chart. The unionist perspective is broad and deep, including all
elements (strategic and tactical) across multiple functional areas. Under a broad unionist
regime, responsibilities of the top supply chain manager would approach those of the CEO.
Lambert et al. (1998, p. 1) define SCM as “the integration of key business processes from
end-user through original suppliers that provides products, services, and information that
add value for customers and other stakeholders.” The key business processes are:
(1) customer relationship management;
(2) customer service management;
(3) demand management;
(4) order fulfillment;
(5) manufacturing flow management;
(6) supplier relationship management;
(7) product development and commercialization; and
(8) returns management (Lambert, 2004; Croxton et al., 2001).

These eight processes subsume much of logistics, purchasing, operations management

and marketing. According to Mentzer, et al. (2001, p. 17), “SCM encompasses all the
 traditional intra-business functions.” In their model of SCM, the traditional business Supply chain
functions are marketing, sales, research and development, forecasting, production, management
purchasing, logistics, information systems, finance and customer service.
Hult (2004) suggests that (global) SCM consists of marketing, logistics, supply
management, and operations management. These four areas have emerged as distinct
academic disciplines, i.e. academic discourse takes place in journals specific to the
particular discipline and many universities have departments focused on these areas. 129
However, professional organisations, such as CSCMP, increasingly attempt to operate
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

at an intersection, where SCM is the common denominator.

Intersectionist
Rich and Hines (1997) describe SCM as “a crossroads where many academic disciplines
have converged.” Tan et al. (2002, p. 614) view SCM as an “integrated strategic
approach to purchasing and logistics management.” To implement SCM, Jespersen and
Skjøtt-Larsen (2005, p. 143) suggest an organizational adjustment “from a division
based on functions to a matrix-like structure, where the functions become integrated.”
Pilkington and Fitzgerald (2006) also view SCM as a “cross-functional activity,”
applicable to many organizations. These authors argue that “SCM has evolved into a
discipline in its own right” (p. 1266). While Chen and Paulraj (2004) underpin the
inter-disciplinary nature of SCM, Cousins et al. (2006, p. 701) point out that “SCM suffers
(or benefits) from being studied from a wide range of academic disciplines and diverse
theoretical perspectives.” For instance, the extant literature includes discussions on
integrating organization theory into SCM (Ketchen and Hult, 2007; Miles and Snow, 2007),
and linking strategic management and economic theory to SCM (Halldórsson et al., 2007).
The intersectionists focus on strategic, integrative elements across purchasing,
logistics, operations, marketing and other functions. In logistics, negotiating a
long-term 3PL deal is a strategic element, while warehouse order picking and packing
is a tactical element within the function. A decision to use discreet versus batch picking
is a tactical decision rather than a strategic one. The intersectionist supply chain
manager would be involved in the 3PL negotiations, but not the pick-and-pack
decision. At the intersection, SCM coordinates cross-functional strategic activities
along the supply chain, beginning at the new product development stage.
In practice, intersectionist organizations may appoint a supply chain council or
team, consisting of executives across functions and institutions (e.g. manufacturer,
retailer, 3PL). The council would break down barriers to SCM, and seek opportunities
to apply SCM concepts to improve overall supply chain performance. A consultative
SCM group, operating in a staff (rather than a line) capacity, would also be indicative of
an intersectionist approach. Logistics, marketing, operations and purchasing would
not report to SCM. Rather, these departments would draw on the SCM group for
research, intelligence and consulting support.

Breadth and depth of SCM

The four perspectives vary in terms of their breadth (narrow or broad) and depth
(shallow or deep) of SCM concept. Unionism and intersectionism are broad because these
perspectives espouse a multiple function SCM concept. On the other hand, traditionalism
and re-labeling are narrow, since they position SCM within a single function, logistics.
Traditionalism is shallow, since it conceives of SCM as a subset of logistics, focusing on
 IJPDLM the strategic, integrative aspects of logistics. In contrast, re-labeling is deep, due to its
38,2 inclusion of all elements of logistics, i.e. the entire depth of logistics, from warehouse
location to picking methods. By including all the elements (strategic and tactical) of
multiple functions, unionism is deep. Finally, intersectionism is shallow, as it focuses
only on strategic, integrative elements across multiple functions. Figure 1 differentiates
between the four perspectives with diagrams.
130 In summary, SCM professionals lack a common perspective/definition of SCM.
Moreover, the various perspectives have important implications for SCM
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

implementation. In general, broad, multiple function perspectives will be more

challenging to implement compared to narrow, logistics-focused perspectives. To gain
further knowledge on perspectives of SCM, along with facilitators of and barriers to
SCM implementation, the researchers designed and administered a questionnaire, to
samples of supply chain professionals in the USA and in Scandinavia.
Although Scandinavian management approaches may be influenced by theories
developed in American research environments, such as transaction cost economics
(Foss, 2005), there still exist indicators of “distinctive aspects of Nordic management”
(Smith et al., 2003). In the case of operations management, Drejer et al. (2000) propose
that approaches to operations management are different in Scandinavia than in the UK
and the USA due to “strong emphasis on the human/organizational aspects of
operation systems.”

Questionnaire design; survey administration

Design of the questionnaire was guided by the literature, as well as discussions with
supply chain professionals. SCM enablers and impediments developed by Mentzer et al.
(2000) were adapted and expanded upon to create questionnaire items on facilitators
of and barriers to SCM. These represent four key task areas of supply chain
professionals. First, organizational issues refer both to structure (e.g. functional silos,
restructuring, and integration) and people (common understanding and training).
Second, relationships with external stakeholders were also considered, including
customers, suppliers, logistics providers (3PLs and fourth-party logistics (4PLs)), and
consultants. By this, we recognize that external relationships play a role in the strategy
formation of the particular company (Håkansson and Ford, 2002). Third, information
technology denotes hardware, software, and systems (electronic data interchange
Traditionalist Re-labeling

Logistics
Logistics

SCM
SCM

Unionist Intersectionist

SCM
Figure 1. Logistics SCM
Perspectives on logistics Logistics
vs SCM
 (EDI), enterprise resource planning (ERP), internet). Finally, though often considered Supply chain
an end rather than a means, performance management was considered, both in terms management
of costs and systems (e.g. SCOR model).
Larson and Halldórsson (2004) inspired measures for the four perspectives on SCM
versus logistics. The questionnaire described each of the perspectives using words and
diagrams (Figure 1), and then asked: “Which perspective on logistics vs SCM has your
organization adopted?” The SCM performance measures included both logistics 131
measures, such as inventory levels and customer service, along with broader measures,
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

such as sales and product quality (Tan et al., 2002).

American survey
A mailing list of 1,000 SCM professionals was purchased from CLM/CSCMP. About
52 names were eliminated due to their positions as press members, consultants, educators,
independents (no company affiliation), or retirees. The order of remaining names was
randomized and the first 600 were selected to receive the questionnaire. A two-wave
mailing procedure was used. In the first wave, the four-page questionnaire was mailed to
all 600 people on the list. First wave survey packages included a cover letter, return
envelope and $1.00 response incentive. A total of 41 packages were returned “return to
sender” or undeliverable. There were 88 responses to the first wave. Four weeks later,
non-respondents were sent a second wave of survey packages (questionnaire, letter,
envelope). The second wave generated 16 additional responses. Overall, recipients
returned 104 completed questionnaires, for a response rate of 18.6 percent (104/559).

Scandinavian survey
The Scandinavian survey was administered via mail (postal service), with e-mail
follow-up. The four-page questionnaire was initially mailed to 91 SCM professionals
from Denmark, Norway and Sweden, all members of CSCMP. After e-mail follow-up,
23 usable responses were received, and another ten survey recipients were disqualified.
Therefore, the effective response rate was 23/81 or 28.4 percent.

Description of respondents
The respondents were a very experienced group of supply chain professionals.
While SCM experience of the Americans ranged from 6 to 60 years, and averaged
nearly 25 years; experience of the Scandinavians working in the field ranged from
5 to 25 years, and averaged almost 15 years.
American firms participating in the survey were somewhat larger than the
Scandinavian firms. Sales at the American firms ranged from $10 million to $80 billion,
and averaged $7.6 billion. Number of employees working at these firms ranged
from 15 to 400,000, and averaged 25,092. At the Scandinavian firms, sales ranged from
$3 million to $7 billion, and averaged $1.2 billion. In addition, number of employees
ranged from 1 to 28,000, and averaged 5,307. However, when divided into small and
large groups, the American and Scandinavian samples appear similar in terms of firm
size (Table I).
Non-response bias was assessed using the extrapolation method; comparing first
and second wave respondents across a selection of questionnaire items. There were no
significant mean differences between the two groups on measures such as years of
experience, number of employees at respondents’ companies, and company sales.
 IJPDLM Statistical results
38,2 As shown in Table II, the four perspectives appear similar in terms of popularity
among the American and Scandinavian supply chain professionals. In both groups,
unionist is the most popular perspective, followed by the intersectionist and
traditionalist perspectives. Further, in neither group do more than 10 percent of
respondents adopt a re-labeling point of view. The popularity of unionism is of little
132 surprise, given the theoretical tilt toward this perspective among professional groups,
such as CSCMP; and SCM scholars, like Lambert et al. (1998) and Mentzer et al. (2001).
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

Table III compares SCM implementation status of the two geographic groups.
At 27.7 percent, Americans are nearly twice as likely to report SCM as “fully
implemented” at their organizations, compared to Scandinavians. On the other hand,
only 4.8 percent of the Scandinavian firms report having “no plans” to implement SCM,
compared to 12.9 percent of the American firms.

Firm size
Location Small Large Total

American 24 (26.7) 66 (73.3) 90

Scandinavian 6 (27.3) 16 (72.7) 22
Total 30 (26.8) 82 (73.2) 112
Table I. Notes: Large: number of employees . 500; small: number of employees <500; Pearson x 2 ¼ 0.003
Geography and firm size ( p-value ¼ 0.95); figures given in parentheses are percentages

Geographic group
Perspective American Scandinavian Total

Unionist 47 (47.0) 12 (52.2) 59

Intersectionist 28 (28.0) 6 (26.1) 34
Traditionalist 19 (19.0) 3 (13.0) 22
Re-labeling 6 (6.0) 2 (8.7) 8
Total 100 23 123
Table II.
Perspective popularity Notes: Pearson x 2 ¼ 0.71 ( p-value ¼ 0.871); figures given in parentheses are percentages

Geographic group
Status of SCM implementation American Scandinavian Total

No plans 13 (12.9) 1 (4.8) 14

Planning stage 11 (10.9) 2 (9.5) 13
Partially 49 (48.5) 15 (71.4) 64
Fully implemented 28 (27.7) 3 (14.3) 31
Total 101 21 122
Table III.
Implementation status Notes: Pearson x 2 ¼ 4.00 ( p-value ¼ 0.261); figures given in parentheses are percentages
 American firms report having re-titled an average of 55.8 employees as part Supply chain
of SCM implementation, compared to only 13.4 employees at Scandinavian firms. management
It is interesting to note the ratio of average American to Scandinavian employees
re-titled (55.8/13.4 ¼ 4.2) is similar to the ratio of average American to Scandinavian
total employees (25,092/5,307 ¼ 4.7). While the American firms have more employees
to re-title, the percent of employees re-titled is similar across the two groups.
Table IV compares average ratings of various sources of SCM knowledge across the 133
two geographic groups. Both Americans and Scandinavians rate CLM/CSCMP the
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

most important source of knowledge on SCM and 4PLs providers the least important
source. While the Scandinavians rate academic journals and books significantly more
important than the Americans, the Americans rate trade magazines significantly more
important than their Scandinavian counterparts. This may reflect the presence of a
variety of good SCM trade magazines in North America.
Both regions place relatively high emphasis on research-driven sources of new
knowledge that allow for professional development of personnel (colleges/universities
and conferences/seminars); compared to acquiring new knowledge through external
organizations (e.g. consultants and logistics providers). Management development
is hence an important means of internalizing new knowledge. Executive education is
rated rather low by Scandinavians and Americans. These ratings may reflect that most
MBA programs offer generalist degrees; few business schools have specialized streams
for SCM MBAs, or Master of Science (MSc) degrees focused on SCM.
In Table V, the groups are compared across four characteristics regarding the
nature of SCM implementation at their organizations. Both groups report that SCM
implementation is slower, more difficult and broader than expected. Though the
Americans also rate implementation more expensive than expected, Scandinavians
rate it slightly less expensive than expected.

Geographic group
Source of knowledgea Americanb Scandinavianb t-statisticc p-value

CLM (CSCMP) 3.60 (1) 3.48 (1) 0.58 0.563

Conferences/seminars 3.45 (2) 3.30 (2) 0.66 0.511
Trade magazines 3.20 (3) 2.55 2.75 0.007
Customers 2.97 (4) 2.71 0.81 0.422
Colleges/universities 2.80 (5) 3.23 (4) 21.55 0.123
Books 2.65 3.26 (3) 22.48 0.015
Academic journals 2.65 3.17 (5) 22.41 0.021
3PLs 2.65 2.24 1.34 0.181
Internet search 2.64 2.55 0.34 0.734
Executive education 2.61 2.71 20.36 0.721
Suppliers 2.57 2.45 0.57 0.572
Consultants 2.45 2.70 21.24 0.222
4PLs 2.02 2.00 0.06 0.954
Notes: a“Please rate the significance of each of the following as sources of your knowledge about SCM”
(0 ¼ none, 1 ¼ very low, 2 ¼ low, 3 ¼ mid-range, 4 ¼ high, 5 ¼ very high); bthe numbers in Table IV.
parentheses are the top five ranks for the American and Scandinavian groups; cbased on Levene’s test, Sources of knowledge
equal variances assumed for all sources except academic journals, consultants and suppliers about SCM
 IJPDLM Facilitators
38,2 Table VI compares average ratings of SCM implementation facilitators by
Scandinavian and American supply chain managers. Both groups rate support of
top management the most important facilitator and 4PL providers the least important
facilitator. External organizations, such as 3PL and 4PL providers and consultants, are
not regarded as important SCM implementation facilitators by either Scandinavians or
134 Americans. Contrary to the vision of Huang et al. (2004), both groups also rate the
SCOR model low in terms of impact as a SCM facilitator. Americans rate computer
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

hardware more important than Scandinavians, as a SCM implementation facilitator.

For both Americans and Scandinavians, the leading SCM facilitators tend to be about
organizational matters (top management support, organizational re-structuring, and
employee training); and internal (integrated logistics) or downstream (customer)
relationships. Of slightly lesser importance are various technological facilitators – EDI,
internet technology, and ERP. Thus, relationships and organizational elements appear more
important than technology, in facilitating SCM implementation. This finding is in alignment

Geographic group
Nature of SCM implementationa American Scandinavian t-statisticb p-value

Easy (1) – difficult (7) 4.99 4.89 0.31 0.756

Fast (1) – slow (7) 4.79 4.61 0.51 0.609
Inexpensive (1) – expensive (7) 4.81 3.78 3.36 0.001
Narrow (1) – broad (7) 4.86 4.41 1.13 0.262
Table V.
The nature of SCM Notes: a“Compared to your objectives or expectations, SCM implementation was (4 ¼ as expected)”;
b
implementation based on Levene’s test, equal variances assumed for all characteristics

Geographic group
Facilitatorsa Americanb Scandinavianb t-statisticc p-value

Top management support 3.85 (1) 3.76 (1) 0.34 0.734

Customer relationship 3.47 (2) 3.32 (3) 0.62 0.539
Organization re-structuring 3.41 (3) 3.10 1.13 0.261
Integrated logistics 3.26 (4) 3.41 (2) 2 0.55 0.587
EDI 3.13 (5) 3.18 (5) 2 0.20 0.846
Internet technology 3.11 3.00 0.41 0.682
Employee training 3.05 3.24 (4) 2 0.60 0.550
ERP 2.95 3.00 2 0.20 0.844
Hardware 2.81 1.89 3.26 0.001
Supply chain software 2.72 2.71 0.03 0.974
Supplier involvement 2.65 3.05 2 1.39 0.168
3PLs 2.43 2.20 0.87 0.390
Consultants 2.11 2.45 2 1.46 0.152
SCOR model 1.91 2.29 2 1.15 0.255
4PLs 1.79 1.74 0.15 0.882
Notes: a“Please rate the impact of each of the following as facilitators to implementing SCM at your
Table VI. organization” (0 ¼ none, 1 ¼ very low, 2 ¼ low, 3 ¼ mid-range, 4 ¼ high, 5 ¼ very high); bthe
SCM implementation numbers in parentheses are the top five ranks for the American and Scandinavian groups; cbased on
facilitators Levene’s test, equal variances assumed for all facilitators except consultants and 3PLs
 with the following words of R. David Nelson, former head of supply at John Deere: “While Supply chain
technology provides us with many helpful tools, those tools are a poor substitute for management
relationships – the basis of every long-term business success” (Paquette, 2004, p. 72).
Employee training was the fourth highest ranking facilitator for the Scandinavians,
with a 3.24 average rating. The Americans rated this facilitator 3.05 on average,
though the difference between the two groups is not significant. Employee training has
not gone unnoticed in the literature. According to Beth et al. (2003), supply chains are 135
“about talent, not technology, especially as the marketplace grows ever more complex.”
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

The challenge involves overcoming tension that exists in organizations characterized

by functional silos. Managers should be trained beyond their functional areas (van
Hoek, 2001); i.e. logistics managers need to learn about more than just logistics,
purchasing managers need to learn about more than just purchasing, etc. Strategic
SCM training programs should consider the features of the intersectionist perspective.

Barriers
Table VII presents comparison of SCM implementation barriers, as perceived by the two
geographic groups. At the 0.05 level of a, there are only two significant differences between
the groups. Compared to the Scandinavians, American supply chain professionals are
significantly more concerned about implementation cost and incompatible systems as
barriers to SCM implementation. Both groups rate functional silos the greatest barrier and
supplier resistance the barrier of least impact. Additional leading barriers common to both
groups are: lack of a common SCM perspective, low-employee skill levels, and the
complexity of SCM. Results in Table VII align with theoretical discussions regarding
barriers in the SCM literature, e.g. Lambert et al. (1998) on functional silos; Larson
and Halldórsson (2004) on SCM vis-à-vis logistics; Gammelgaard and Larson (2001) and
Mangan and Christopher (2005) on skills/competencies and knowledge areas for SCM;
and Power (2005) on SCM integration.

Geographic group
Barriersa Americanb Scandinavianb t-statisticc p-value

Functional silos 3.76 (1) 3.48 (1) 1.00 0.319

Incompatible systems 3.51 (2) 2.86 2.42 0.017
No common SCM perspective 3.25 (3) 3.26 (2) 20.04 0.972
Supply chain conflict 3.23 (4) 2.90 1.15 0.252
Lack of employee skill 3.19 (5) 3.14 (3) 0.19 0.848
Complexity of SCM 3.17 3.14 (3) 0.10 0.923
Organization structure 3.17 3.05 (5) 0.46 0.646
Internal resistance 3.09 3.00 0.32 0.747
Implementation cost 2.98 2.38 2.45 0.016
Lack of connectivity 2.60 2.09 1.88 0.062
Unwillingness to share info 2.50 2.41 0.32 0.750
Customer resistance 2.07 2.14 20.24 0.811
Supplier resistance 1.86 1.81 0.19 0.850
Notes: a“Please rate the impact of each of the following as barriers to implementing SCM at your
organization” (0 ¼ none, 1 ¼ very low, 2 ¼ low, 3 ¼ mid-range, 4 ¼ high, 5 ¼ very high); bthe Table VII.
numbers in parentheses are the top five ranks for the American and Scandinavian groups; cbased on SCM implementation
Levene’s test, equal variances assumed for all barriers except organizational structure barriers
 IJPDLM It is interesting that supplier resistance and customer resistance – external
38,2 relationship issues – are rated as having low impact on SCM implementation. Indeed,
internal resistance has more impact as a barrier, compared to supplier resistance or
customer resistance; suggesting supply chain managers should focus first on internal
integration, and then external integration. Alternatively, as suggested by Kotzab et al.
(2006), increased integration with customers and suppliers may improve functional
136 integration within an organization.
Some of the top barriers for both Scandinavians and Americans relate to
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

organizational issues (functional silos, no common SCM perspective, complexity,

and organizational structure) and people issues (lack of employee skill). Resistance
from customers and suppliers is rated low by both groups, as is the ability to interact
across organizational boundaries (unwillingness to share information and lack of
connectivity). While the difference is not statistically significant, the Americans rated
supply chain conflict higher as a barrier, compared to the Scandinavians. The natural
tension between competition and collaboration may restrain greater supply chain
integration (Fawcett and Magnan, 2002).
A comparison of the SCM impact on performance, across six measures, is shown in
Table VIII. Generally, the Scandinavian supply chain professionals report a greater
SCM performance impact on these measures, compared to the Americans. However,
only in the case of total costs is the difference statistically significant.

Conclusions
The survey confirmed that senior supply chain executives, in Scandinavia and the
USA, have multiple perspectives on SCM vis-à-vis logistics. However, they strongly
prefer broad, multiple function perspectives (unionist and intersectionist) to narrow,
single function, logistics-based perspectives (traditionalist and re-labeling). The survey
also identified a number of facilitators of and barriers to SCM, which have implications
for supply chain managers and researchers. This section, and the paper, ends with a
discussion of limitations of the study, along with future research opportunities.

Implications for supply chain managers

Many of the barriers discussed in the SCM literature remain in the minds of SCM
executives. Functional silos within organizations, lack of a common SCM perspective,

Geographic group
Performancea American Scandinavian t-statisticb p-value

Customer service 3.56 3.79 21.55 0.130

Cycle time 3.40 3.61 21.06 0.293
Inventory levels 3.42 3.47 20.20 0.844
Product quality 3.26 3.22 0.23 0.818
Sales revenue 3.28 3.56 21.40 0.164
Total costs 3.23 3.65 22.04 0.045
Notes: a“Indicate the SCM impact on the following performance measures, relative to your
organization’s objectives” (1 ¼ much worse than objective; 3 ¼ equal to objective; 5 ¼ much better
Table VIII. than objective); bbased on Levene’s test; equal variances assumed for all measures except customer
SCM performance impact service
 and inadequate employee skills are ongoing obstacles to SCM implementation. These Supply chain
three issues are inter-related: inadequate skill/knowledge feeds into silos which hinder management
common thinking on SCM. The survey found internal resistance substantially more of
a barrier to SCM implementation compared to external (customer and supplier)
resistance. Perhaps, intra-organizational integration must come before
inter-organizational/supply chain integration (Ferguson, 2000). Once an organization
overcomes internal resistance, it can anticipate less resistance from suppliers and 137
customers.
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

However, lessons learned from external integration, with customer or suppliers, can
be built upon to inspire greater internal integration. Kotzab et al. (2006) argue that
implementation of SCM requires managers not to focus too much on “internal affairs”;
they must pay more notice to external integration, which can be facilitated by
“market-oriented SCM activities.”
The leading SCM facilitators – top management support, customer relationships
and integrated logistics management – are about relationships with customers and
within the organization, rather than technology. People appear to be more important
than computers in SCM implementation in both Scandinavia and the USA.
Implementing companies cannot take it for granted that the actors (organizations,
individuals) involved will instantly and without motivation comply with the logic
provided by the new system. Grossman (2004) reached a similar conclusion in the
context of internet-enabled supply chains.
This implies training programs to enhance the skill set of supply chain managers
should first focus on the people and relational issues in SCM. The grounding for this
focus could be the “community of practice” idea, developed by Sense and Clements
(2006). Companies should consider sending their people in purchasing, operations, and
logistics to programs that bring theories and people together across the functions.
Ultimately, executive programs should allow companies to invite important suppliers
and customers to participate in sessions.
Both groups of professionals in this study reported SCM implementation to be
slower, more difficult, and broader in scope than expected. American professionals
viewed implementation as being more expensive than expected; while Scandinavians
viewed it slightly less expensive than expected. One explanation for this difference
may be that fewer Scandinavian respondents have fully implemented SCM (Table III)
and thus have yet to recognize how expensive implementation may ultimately be. The
effort and resources required to implement SCM should not be underestimated. It is a
marathon, not a sprint.
Group differences may be due to different styles of management in Scandinavia and
America, but it is difficult to make such inferences from the survey. Various studies
have reported differences in management styles in different countries. For instance,
Bernstein (1988) describes the American management setting as one of low trust
between workers and managers, who are “trapped in the web of Taylorism and
top-down management.”
Opposite this is an atmosphere of trust and delegation of responsibility, yielding
positive influence on productivity in a Volvo plant in Sweden. Bruner and Spekman
(1998) refer to decentralized management structure with easy flow of information as
a particularly Swedish characteristic. This style of management extends to the inter-
firm setting in Scandinavia. In a study of dyadic relationship coordination between
 IJPDLM Telia Mobile and Ericsson, Håkansson and Lind (2004) found that decision makers
38,2 gathered information through personal contacts and meetings, and were not given
“formalized accounting information about the relationship.”
Americans and Scandinavians indicated the impact of SCM on performance has
been greater than expected; in terms of customer service, cycle time, inventory levels,
product quality, sales revenue and total costs. This implies while SCM implementation
138 is difficult and costly, the rewards to be anticipated are substantial.
The nature of SCM implementation depends on the organization – and its perspective
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

on SCM. Since, re-labeling simply implies a name change, it can be implemented to a great
extent by re-titling employees and issuing new business cards. On the other hand, a
unionist implementation implies much more dramatic change, including alteration of
budget lines, reporting relationships and organizational charts. Jespersen and
Skjøtt-Larsen (2005, p. 143) suggest that “the introduction of new forms of management,
decision-making patterns, working assignments, and reward systems” are among the
organizational adjustments that could occur during SCM implementation. Note that the
intersectionist perspective may ease SCM implementation by minimizing the need to
make such dramatic organizational adjustments.
Breadth of perspective determines which functional departments to involve in SCM
implementation, and aids in the identification and selection of the right supply chain
partners. According to Croxton et al. (2001, p. 30), “successful supply chain
management involves the coordination of activities within the firm and between
members of the supply chain.” SCM implementation focuses on achieving functional
integration, within and between supply chain organizations. However, it is unclear if
SCM implementation can really be planned ex-ante, or if it is rather an “emerging”
phenomenon; i.e. as the organization adds new technologies, establishes integrative
efforts internally and with external parties, the attributes of SCM emerge over time.
The SCM implementation plan should address perspective alignment, within the
organization as well as across the supply chain. Ideally, the organization will identify
and select supply chain partners that share a common perspective on SCM. The plan
must also address issues of organizational re-structuring, especially in the case of the
unionist perspective.

Limitations and future research

While the Scandinavian sample included respondents from Denmark, Norway and
Sweden, sample sizes were too small to test for possible differences between the
Scandinavian countries. However, this is a compelling opportunity for future research;
even within Scandinavia, management practice may differ in terms of reliance upon
formal procedures versus unwritten rules (Smith et al., 2003). Within North America, it
would likewise be interesting to study differences between Canadian, American and
Mexican perceptions about SCM.
Another limitation is use of the CSCMP membership as a sampling frame. The
membership is tilted toward larger, private-sector firms. Further, the history of
CSCMP, i.e. its recent past as the CLM, suggests that its members are functionally
focused on logistics, as opposed to purchasing or operations. Further research is
needed to explore SCM perspectives, barriers and facilitators in the minds of
professionals looking at SCM from the viewpoints of other functions or intellectual
domains such as operations management or purchasing and supply management.
 Important sources of new knowledge are conferences in general; trade journals, for Supply chain
the Americans; and academic journals, for the Scandinavians. Future research must management
consider the possibility of divergence or convergence in research approaches within the
two regions that may inform practitioners in different ways. As mentioned above,
Drejer et al. (2000) suggest that approaches to operations management are to some
extent different in the USA, UK, and Scandinavia. Such differences may be linked to
different sources of knowledge across regions. 139
Several of the survey findings could serve to stimulate further research into
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

definition and implementation of SCM. For instance, internal resistance appears to be

much more of a barrier to SCM implementation, compared to external (customer and
supplier) resistance. This finding merits additional, more detailed study. What are the
causes of internal resistance? How can supply chain managers reduce, if not eliminate
this resistance? Can effective external (supplier or customer) relationships help ease or
eliminate internal resistance?
Another finding in need of further research involves the leading facilitators of SCM
implementation. According to the survey, these facilitators were relational rather than
technological. Despite this evidence, on the primacy of people and relationships,
computers and technology remain important pieces in the SCM puzzle. How does SCM
technology impact supply chain relationships? In turn, how do relationships along the
supply chain influence the use of SCM technology? How should implementation unfold;
i.e. should technology be developed and implemented prior to training employees and
organizational re-structuring, or vice versa?
Based on surveys of supply chain managers, this paper presented a comparative
analysis of Scandinavian and American perspectives on SCM. In these times of global
supply chains, there is an opportunity to repeat the survey in other parts of the world,
such as Asia or South America, toward further generalization of the results. Further in
depth study is also needed regarding what factors influence the choice of a perspective
on SCM, across countries, and perhaps cultures.

References
Bernstein, P. (1988), “The trust culture”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 4-8.
Beth, S., Burt, D.N., Copacino, W., Gopal, C., Lee, H.L., Lynch, R.P., Morris, S. and Kirby, J. (2003),
“Supply chain challenges: building relationships”, Harvard Business Review, July,
pp. 64-73.
Bowersox, D. (1969), “Physical distribution: development, current status, and potential”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 33, pp. 63-70.
Bruner, R. and Spekman, R. (1998), “The dark side of alliances: lessons from Volvo-Renault”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 136-50.
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. 119-50.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management: more than a new
name for logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Council of Logistics Management (2004), “Supply chain management/logistics management
definitions”, available at: www.clm1.org/ (accessed September 19).
 IJPDLM Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B. and Squire, B. (2006), “Supply chain management: theory and practice
– the emergence of an academic discipline?”, International Journal of Operations &
38,2 Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 697-702.
Croxton, K.L., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J., Lambert, D.M. and Rogers, D.S. (2001), “The supply chain
management processes”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 13-36.
140 Drejer, A., Blackmon, K. and Voss, C. (2000), “Worlds apart? A look at the operations
management area in the US, UK and Scandinavia”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

Vol. 16, pp. 45-66.

Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002), “The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 339-61.
Ferguson, B.R. (2000), “Implementing supply chain management”, Production & Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 64-7.
Foss, N.J. (2005), “Transaction cost economics in Scandinavian business administration”,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 5-17.
Gammelgaard, B. and Larson, P.D. (2001), “Logistics skills and competencies for supply chain
management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 27-50.
Giannakis, M. and Croom, S.R. (2004), “Toward the development of a supply chain management
paradigm: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 27-37.
Grossman, M. (2004), “The role of trust and collaboration in the internet-enabled supply chain”,
Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 391-6.
Håkansson, H. and Ford, D. (2002), “How should firms interact in business networks?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 133-9.
Håkansson, H. and Lind, J. (2004), “Accounting and network coordination”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 51-72.
Halldórsson, A., Kotzab, H., Mikkola, J.H. and Skjøtt-Larsen, T. (2007), “Complementary theories
to supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 284-96.
Huang, S.H., Sheoran, S.K. and Wang, G. (2004), “A review and analysis of supply chain
operations reference (SCOR) model”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 23-9.
Hult, G.T.M. (2004), “Global supply chain management: an integration of scholarly thought”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 3-5.
Jespersen, B.D. and Skjøtt-Larsen, T. (2005), Supply Chain Management: In Theory and Practice,
Copenhagen Business School Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Hult, G.T.M. (2007), “Toward greater integration of insights from
organization theory and supply chain management”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 455-8.
Kotzab, H., Grant, D.B. and Friis, A. (2006), “Supply chain management implementation and
priority strategies in Danish organizations”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 273-300.
Lambert, D.M. (2004), “The eight essential supply chain management processes”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 18-26.
 Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation Supply chain
issues and research opportunities”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 1-19. management
Larson, P.D. and Halldórsson, Á. (2004), “Logistics vs. supply chain management: an
international survey”, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Mangan, J. and Christopher, M. (2005), “Management development and the supply chain 141
manager of the future”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

pp. 178-91.
Mentzer, J.T., Foggin, J.H. and Golicic, S.L. (2000), “Collaboration: the enablers, impediments, and
benefits”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 52-8.
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.
Metz, P.J. (1998), “Demystifying supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management Review,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 46-55.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (2007), “Organization theory and supply chain management: an
evolving research perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 459-63.
Paquette, L. (2004), The Sourcing Solution, American Management Association, New York, NY.
Pilkington, A. and Fitzgerald, R. (2006), “Operations management themes, concepts, and
relationships: a forward retrospective of IJOPM”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1255-75.
Power, D. (2005), “Supply chain management integration and implementation: a literature
review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 252-63.
Rich, N. and Hines, P. (1997), “Supply-chain management and time-based competition: the role of
the supplier association”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 210-25.
Sense, A.J. and Clements, M.D.J. (2006), “Ever consider a supply chain as a ‘community of
practice?’ Embracing a learning perspective to build supply chain integration”,
Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 6-8.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P. and Simchi-Levi, E. (2003), Designing and Managing the Supply
Chain, 2nd ed., Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Skjøtt-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.
Smith, P.B., Andersen, J.A., Ekelund, B., Graversen, G. and Ropo, A. (2003), “In search of Nordic
management styles”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 491-507.
Stock, J.R. and Lambert, D.M. (2001), Strategic Logistics Management, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill
Irwin, Boston, MA.
Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J. (2002), “Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22
Nos 5/6, pp. 614-31.
van Hoek, R.I. (2001), “Logistics education: achieving market and research driven skill
development”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 31 Nos 7/8, pp. 505-19.
 IJPDLM About the authors
Árni Halldórsson, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Management at University of
38,2 Southampton. He completed his PhD in 2002 at Copenhagen Business School, and has been a
visiting scholar at Reykjavik University, Iceland. He has published articles in several of the
leading logistics and SCM journals. His major areas of research interest include
inter-organizational relationships, third-party logistics, implementation of supply chain
management, and qualitative research methods. He is the Founder of and Writer on the
142 academic blog www.interorganizational.org, focusing on current issues in SCM theory and
practice.
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

Paul D. Larson, PhD is a Professor of Supply Chain Management at the University of

Manitoba, Asper School of Business. He is also Head of the SCM Department and Director of the
Transport Institute. He taught purchasing, logistics and SCM at the University of Nevada from
1996 to 2001, and at Iowa State University from 2001 to 2004. He has consulted and conducted
executive seminars, in Europe, North America, South America, the Caribbean and China, on
logistics, purchasing and SCM. He also serves on the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of
Supply Chain Management. He recently served as Chair for the 2007 Supply Chain/Logistics
Research Forum in Toronto. Paul D. Larson is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
larson@cc.umanitoba.ca
Richard F. Poist, PhD is a Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management and Chair for
the Department of Logistics, Operations, and Management Information Systems (LOMIS) at the
College of Business, Iowa State University. Prior to joining the Iowa State faculty in 1991, he had
been a faculty member and administrator in the College of Business and Management at the
University of Maryland, College Park. His background also includes experience as a logistics
consultant to a number of shipper, carrier, governmental and trade organizations. His research
has appeared in numerous journals in the transportation and logistics field. In addition to being
an ad hoc reviewer for numerous publications, he has served on the Editorial Review Boards of
the Journal of Business Logistics, Transportation Journal, Journal of the Transportation Research
Forum, Defense Transportation Journal and the International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications. Currently, he is Co-Editor of the International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. SweeneyEdward, Edward Sweeney, GrantDavid B., David B. Grant, ManganD. John, D. John Mangan.
Strategic adoption of logistics and supply chain management. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. KanebergElvira, Elvira Kaneberg. 2017. Managing military involvement in emergency preparedness in
developed countries. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 7:3, 350-374.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. JastiNaga Vamsi Kishna, Naga Vamsi Kishna Jasti, KurraSuresh, Suresh Kurra. 2017. An empirical
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

investigation on lean supply chain management frameworks in Indian manufacturing industry.

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 66:6, 699-723. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
4. BrunningeOlof, Olof Brunninge, FridrikssonHelgi-Valur, Helgi-Valur Fridriksson. 2017. “We have always
been responsible”. European Business Review 29:3, 372-383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Christopher Rajkumar, Lone Kavin, Xue Luo, Jan Stentoft. 2016. Doctoral dissertations in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of Nordic contributions from 2009 to 2014. Logistics Research 9:1. .
[Crossref]
6. Hamid Jafari. 2015. Logistics flexibility: a systematic review. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 64:7, 947-970. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Evangelia Varoutsa, Robert W. Scapens. 2015. The governance of inter-organisational relationships during
different supply chain maturity phases. Industrial Marketing Management 46, 68-82. [Crossref]
8. Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Carmen Medina-Lopez. 2015. An analysis of the direct and
mediated effects of employee commitment and supply chain integration on organisational performance.
International Journal of Production Economics 162, 242-257. [Crossref]
9. Martin Tanco, Daniel Jurburg, Matias Escuder. 2015. Main difficulties hindering supply chain
performance: an exploratory analysis at Uruguayan SMEs. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 20:1, 11-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Malihe Manzouri, Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, Haslina Arshad. 2015. Issues in Supply Chain
Implementation. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 8:1, 85-101.
[Crossref]
11. Henrik Ringsberg. 2014. Perspectives on food traceability: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:5/6, 558-576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu, Kamel A. Fantazy. 2014. Supply chain strategy, flexibility, and performance.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 25:2, 399-416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Janet L. Hartley, Michelle Brodke, Jane V. Wheeler, Zhaohui Wu, Michelle D. Steward. 2014. Exploring
supply management status, internal collaboration and operating performance. Operations Management
Research 7:1-2, 24-35. [Crossref]
14. Assadej Vanichchinchai. 2014. Supply chain management, supply performance and total quality
management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 22:2, 126-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Malihe Manzouri, Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, Nizaroyani Saibani, Che Rosmawati Che Mohd Zain. 2013.
Lean supply chain practices in the Halal food. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4:4, 389-408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 16. Katri Karjalainen, Asta Salmi. 2013. Continental differences in purchasing strategies and tools.
International Business Review 22:1, 112-125. [Crossref]
17. Dag Näslund, Hana Hulthen. 2012. Supply chain management integration: a critical analysis.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 19:4/5, 481-501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Chee Wong, Heather Skipworth, Janet Godsell, Nemile Achimugu. 2012. Towards a theory of supply
chain alignment enablers: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 17:4, 419-437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Assadej Vanichchinchai. 2012. The relationship between employee involvement, partnership management
and supply performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:2, 157-172.
Downloaded by STAATS UND UNIVERSITAETSBIBLIOTHEK BREMEN At 14:09 04 March 2018 (PT)

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

20. Paul Childerhouse, Eric Deakins, Tillmann Böhme, Dennis R. Towill, Stephen M. Disney, Ruth
Banomyong. 2011. Supply chain integration: an international comparison of maturity. Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics 23:4, 531-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. F. Jalalvand, E. Teimoury, A. Makui, M.B. Aryanezhad, F. Jolai. 2011. A method to compare supply
chains of an industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:2, 82-97. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
22. P. Childerhouse, D.R. Towill. 2011. Effective supply chain research via the quick scan audit methodology.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:1, 5-10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Malihe Manzouri, Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, Haslina Arshad, Ahmad Rasdan Ismail. 2010. Barriers of
supply chain management implementation in manufacturing companies: a comparison between Iranian
and Malaysian companies. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 27:6, 456-472. [Crossref]
24. C. Clifford Defee, Brent Williams, Wesley S. Randall, Rodney Thomas. 2010. An inventory of theory in
logistics and SCM research. The International Journal of Logistics Management 21:3, 404-489. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
25. Frederik Zachariassen, Dennis van Liempd. 2010. Implementation of SCM in inter‐organizational
relationships: a symbolic perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
40:4, 315-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Sajad Fayezi, Maryam Zomorrodi. Supply Chain Management 313-340. [Crossref]
27. Douglas S. Hill. An Examination of Standardized Product Identification and Business Benefit 171-195.
[Crossref]
28. Douglas S. Hill. An Examination of Standardized Product Identification and Business Benefit 387-411.
[Crossref]